< 12 January	14 January >

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 Yantacaw Brook. General consensus that there isn't enough sourcing for a standalone article, but that there is enough for content to be included somewhere (disregarding the WP:JNN stuff), with the most suitable entry seeming to be Yantacaw Brook. ansh 666 20:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey[edit]

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

This is a municipal park, it does not meet WP:GNG. There is no sourcing other than link to a list of Montclair parks. The contents of the article seem to be original research WP:OR. Also does not meet criteria for inclusion as per WP:NOTTRAVEL. DEPRODED by User:Djflem because the article has existed since 2008. Longevity is never a valid reason to keep an article. Rusf10 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- COMMENT: The edit sumary said exists since 2008; could be merged; part of series. Please don't cherry pick to misrepresent other eidtors. Fact stands that it could be easily merged and that is it is part of a template/series which adds to comprehensive coverage in WikipediaDjflem (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the nomination misrepresents the PROD, which can be confirmed with this diff. Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails GNG. Rhadow (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This municipal park does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge / Redirect to Yantacaw Brook or Montclair, New Jersey Sadly, the nominator patently refuses to comply with WP:BEFORE, which requires seeking alternatives to deletion. Furthermore, the box that displays above this page when editing rather clearly states "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."
"Why?" is indeed the question. Why do we continue to tolerate the abuse of process here at AfD from an editor who refuses to comply with policy? Alansohn (talk) Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:If you got a problem, take it to the proper venue or keep you big mouth shut. If you want to comment here, talk about the article, not me. Maybe you can explain why a park that can't even be properly sourced deserves mentioning anywhere.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my big mouth shut? Please read WP:NPA. Notability is on a standalone basis. Do you oppose a merge to Montclair, New Jersey or do you simply refuse to comply with deletion policy? Alansohn (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence of NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor.", maybe you need to read it. Almost every deletion discussion "the nominator this" or "the nominator that" And "keep your big mouth shut" (I'll say it again) is accurate reflection of the fact that you feel the need to add lengthy attacks on me to deletion discussions. The only reliable source that exists would be this: [[1]] and that is simply not enough. There is nothing worth merging. A list of parks might be appropriate in the Montclair article buts that's it.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on content *AND* I will comment on your continuing abuse of process and failure by the nominator to follow policy. The persistent failure to comply with policy regarding consideration of a merge only adds to the problems you've created and refused to address. If you've got a problem, why not run off to WP:ANI for the third, fourth and fifth time. The previous attempts haven't accomplished much. Alansohn (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:I've answered all of your questions, even though I am under no obligation to do so. (see WP:SATISFY) You seem to be the one that is having a problem here, I strongly encourage you to take this to ANI or cease you condescending commentary immediately.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have amended ,my !vote as the sources identified demonstrate independent notability; worst case is that the article should be merged into Yantacaw Brook or the municipal article, a choice never considered by the nominator. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yantacaw Brook This park is one of several along the course of the brook and would be the approprpriate place for such infoDjflem (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I would also support Yantacaw Brook as a merge target. Alansohn (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At a minimum, Merging to a brook or municipality article is preferable to outright deletion. However this is a municipal park and it is reasonable to believe that substantial sources do exist, even if they are not online and readily available. In similar AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webb Mountain Park by same deletion-nominator, it turns out that specific off-line source(s) have been found. wp:BEFORE seems not to have been met here. Even if no online sources are found, we can presume offline sources exist, in the municipality and region's planning documents, in original park designs and dedications and so on, and in tourist and nature guidebooks and elsewhere. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Comments like Maybe you can explain why a park that can't even be properly sourced deserves mentioning anywhere are just snide and unhelpful. --Doncram (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we get to presume that sources exist? (especially when we're trying to establish notability) Where's the policy that say to presume sourcing exists? We either know they exist or they don't. You and alansohn want to keep throwing WP:BEFORE out there, but nobody has come up with any reliable sources. And my comments are inappropriate, but I'm sure you're perfectly okay with alansohn's attack on me?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, Alansohn's comments sound like they are frustrated but not derisive.

For lots of types of places, including historic sites listed on the U.S. National Register, and museums, and miniature train rides, and caves, and other public attractions including parks, we know from experience that sources will usually exist. Specifically there are currently about 2,300 historic site articles that are inadequately sourced. You are free to tag them, but if you proceed with nominating them for deletion you will lose 2,300 times over. There are other topics too, like historic newspapers and publishers, where tagging but not deletion-nominating is appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that argument is nothing indicates that this park is a historic site. I also can't believe we give auto-notability to miniature train rides.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the park is a registered historic site. It is like those, where notability can be presumed. What is written at wp:COMMONOUTCOMES oughta be expanded about public attractions in general.

About miniature train rides, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan AuSable Valley Railroad is the important precedent. Among other arguments, it was pointed out that as a transportation system carrying members of the public, it would have to pass state and/or other transportation system requirements, inspections, etc., which must generate documentation. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding plenty of coverage of the park and its history as part of the Sigler Farm, coverage of its bikeways, and coverage of other historical aspects such as Eli Manning filming a Toyota commercial at the park. This a well written and comprehensive article that documents a very notable park that includes significant water features, amenities, amd cultural significance in a populated area. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see I I understand this. What you're saying is the park is notable because of its proximity to a historical farm (its not even next to it, a few blocks away, but even so) and because Eli Manning filmed a commercial there? So I suppose every place Eli Manning walks into automatically becomes notable too? Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're saying they reviewed available sources and found relevant stuff that could be mentioned in the article, some of it going towards establishing notability. A commercial being filmed there can certainly be mentioned in the article; whether it goes towards notability depends a bit upon the specifics of the coverage. Twisting what someone says into something else, then getting mad at the something else, is not healthy.

About Sigler Farm, I am not bothering to look up anything about it, because the deletion nomination and much of this discussion seems to be going along in a pretty information-free vein. I imagine that part or all of the park might once have been part of Sigler farm, and the farmhouse and whatever remnant of the farm is now separate. Anyhow, coverage about Sigler Farm probably could cover the park. Again I am not looking at specific sources. It is speculation either way about what the unexamined coverage says, but the reasonable presumption is that substantial coverage exists.

Please do try searching on Sigler Farm:

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

--Doncram (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google search comes up with absolutely nothing linking the park to the farm.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in detail on page 14 of the book Legendary Locals of Montclair, New Jersey. One of many examples of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in National Register of Historic Places 1986 preliminary survey of historic resources in the Montclair area: [2], which led to various districts and properties being NRHP-listed later. Apparently then there was still a mix of remnants of farms and subdivisions. Not saying that is substantial coverage about the park itself, but the park is a landmark in the area and other things such as neighborhoods of historic houses are described in relation to it. --Doncram (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yantacaw Brook The sources presented above are enough to demonstrate some level of notability but probably not significant enough to demonstrate WP:GNG-notability. Merging relevant content to the parent article as not enough for a standalone article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not notable. Seconcepts (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately - Nothing to establish notability. It's a cute little article, in a way, and I'm sure a great little park, but a park does not automatically merit an encyclopedia article just by existing. Coverage in reliable secondary sources beyond a trivial mention of it existing are necessary. What is being written about the park? Apparently next to nothing. At least least we would need some in depth coverage of its qualities and impact from multiple sources. A notable city park has that. I would not object to merging any cited material but there doesn't seem to be any to speak of. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Yantacaw Brook, too much sourcing to warrant deletion. From the 1930s (when old estates & farms were purchased by developers of housing estates) through the early 1950s (when the last open tracts of land were filed with suburban split-levels), there was a fair amount of discussion in the NYTimes, Herald Trib and other papers of the attractions of suburban Montclair (descirbing this and other town parks as a reason to move there) and discussing land use battles involving this park - an extension of the park along the Creek involving a parkway was much discussed, and there were at least two proposals to block land purchases by developers and add acreage to this Park. (articles like: Montclair Offers Superior Schools and Homes for Families of Prosperous Commuters: Jersey Town Also Takes Pride In Civic Thrift, Social Life Montclair's Retail Sales Average $538 Per Person Yearly, $268 Above National Average; Most of Town Area Already Occupied by Housing,, Cresbaugh, John M, Jr. New York Herald Tribune (1926-1962); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]15 Feb 1953: 1C. AND "the report specifically advocates an extension of Yantacaw Brook Park" in: Planners List New City Hall as Montclair Need: Municipal Building Inadequate and Antiquated, Says Town Board Report Civic Center Is Suggested Preservation of Residential Advantages Emphasized Special to the Herald Tribune. New York Herald Tribune (1926-1962); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]03 Jan 1932: 33.) I have not attempted to sort out the history of the Park and whether/when it was expanded. But it could undoubtedly be done using old news reports. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: to return and replace the edit he made an hour or so ago, and remind Nom, User:Rusf10, to WP:AGF - it looks as though in expanding a comment, Alansohn somehow managed to delete a large swath of material. I find it hard to imagine that anyone - let alone an experienced editor - could have made that deletion deliberately. Mistakes happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:I'm not saying it wasn't a mistake, but I don't think there was any other reasonable solution other than a revert. He is welcome to fix the error. And, good thing you fixed that typo, he may have found it highly offensive.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Rusf10, E.M.Gregory and all other participants here, my apologies for my carelessness in failing to realize that much of the active discussion had been inadvertently deleted after being mindlessly oblivious to the fact that I was editing an old version of this discussion. After reviewing the gist of the subsequent discussion it appears that I would not necessarily make the same changes, as there has been appropriate consideration given to a merge by many editors here, though policy still dictates that we should be hearing from *ALL* participants as to whether or not a merge and / or redirect should be considered and, if not, an explanation for why a non-delete option should be rejected. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 21 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skytells Framework[edit]

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

Non-notable software, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see how this could pass the notability guidelines DocumentError (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 14 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. Spa votes given little weight, as have assertions of sourcing. If you have sources you need to cite them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powerhouse Films[edit]

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

Promotional tone; crappy reference format; most of "article" consists of page after page of product catalog. I don't know whether the current version can be salvaged, or if we need to blow up this one and start afresh. Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if, as it appears, this company distributes films rather than makes them or has any creative input. Notability would need to be achieved by receiving general, secondary, non-industry coverage about the company, rather than piggy-backing on the notability of the films. It's only been established for a year, so unlikely to have made any lasting impact. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the number of video distribution companies that have pages dedicated to them on WP?? E.g.: Category:Home_video_lines, Category:Home_video_companies_of_the_United_States Are you going to call for all of them to be deleted?? Cagwinn (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them clearly meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Feel free to nominate those that don't. As I say above, this one in particular seems to very new, and piggy-backing its notability on its 'products'. More than that, by listing all of their releases with catalogue numbers and available formats, the company is clearly using Wikipedia as an extension of their website to sell their products. The article should be deleted for being a blatant advert. Sionk (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reasoning behind this? Should one wait a few years before creating a band/company/film page because otherwise they want to "sell their products"? Furthermore, the company did not create this page, boutique label fans did. Like they did for Criterion, and Arrow, and all pages of this kind. Why don't you delete Sony's List of Instant Game Collection games list? By your standards, it makes people want to buy PS+ subscriptions in order to enjoy all those games. A blatant advert, really. MouseyN1 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail GNG - I've done a before check and am unable to find a way to redeem this either DocumentError (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are numerous other pages on WP dedicated to other video distribution companies (see for example: Category:Home_video_lines, Category:Home_video_companies_of_the_United_States) that have virtually the same format; why should this one be specifically targeted for deletion?? How about trying to fix any issues it might have - or even just start a conversation on the issues in the pages Talk section?? Seems not only rash, but overly vindictive to call for immediate deletion. Cagwinn (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The first two cites show the company is significant and important and has been noted as such. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the "substantial coverage" is intellectually independent. The first cite is an interview with the founder and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The second cite is an accouncement/press release and likewise fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The indicator label is far more than a distributor. It’s a curated collection with genuine first party content created to accompany each release. This takes it far beyond the realms of such titles as Now That’s What I Call Music which is on Wikipedia and is a blatant redistribution with no original content. Here’s the link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now_That%27s_What_I_Call_Music Would you consider taking this for deletion using the same reasoning? I think not. As previously commented on, the request for deletion seems more than a little malicious and I have to call into question the motives for such a request considering the amount of useful information available on the page that contravenes no established Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flux Ultra (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It passes WP:GNG, "Label has won awards ("Indicator won Home Cinema Choice magazine's Label of the Year award". Direct interviews with the magazine are here as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but remove catalogue. This content has already been deleted at AFD per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. --wooden superman 09:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but if kept remove catalogue. Company fails notability guidelines. The catalogue content has already been deleted at AFD per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. --wooden superman 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous AfD related to a list article of films created by this company. A lack of article about the company itself was cited as a rationale for deletion then...and now someone has created such an article. Many sources. The list article of films is entirely consistent with other pages such as: List of Masters of Cinema releases & List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. Constructive suggestions presented as to how these concerns can be addressed in order maintain the page are likely to be addressed. Sarac3ns (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is about a company, not a list of DVDs or films, so your argument doesn't wash. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about the company and the releases from that company which are a curated collection with genuine first party content created to accompany each release. Were the company article to be placed separate to a page featuring a List of Indicator Series releases consistent with those Master of Cinema & Criterion pages would that be sufficient? Worth adding that the page: List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases - contains both company information and release details. Sarac3ns (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It passes WP:GNG. Ciccio.santini (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Passes GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability for this company. Notability is not inherited and this topic appears to rely on the notability of some of the movies it is associated with. The Keep !votes above fail to provide any reasoning for assertions such as "passes WP:GNG" or that the nomination is "more than a little malicious". The criteria for establishing notability requires two intellectually independent references from reliable sources. That available references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article subject fully passes WP:GNG with significant coverage across multiple sources. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and a Note to Closing Admin. Please note the number of suspiciously fresh editors to this AfD - Flux Ultra, Sarac3ns and Ciccio.santini in particular. To date, several editors have pointed out that they are unable to find references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty as required for organizations per GNG and WP:NCORP. Can any of the editors who believe that there are references for this topic that meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post links here so that other editors can determine if there are good references available to establish notability? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and significant RS coverage not found. Film distribution companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Notability is not inherited from the notable films in its catalogue and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 21 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. After muddling this through with a couple of other admins I have to the decision to close this as no consensus.

A significant number of keep votes quote WP:AIRCRASH which in itself cannot be used as a rationale to keep an article, just the material regarding the crash. I also see a significant number of WP:ILIKEIT votes, and some actually providing good reasoning to keep the article. Like wise I see some solid reasons to delete it. Some say it doesn't pass WP:GNG while others say it does. Assessing what GNG is, a subject is notable if there is significant coverage from secondary, independent, reliable sources. ~~Unfortunately most of the article cites flight tracking data with some news articles so the interpretation as to whether it passes or not is in the air s~~ Since only 2 users only bothered to back up the GNG argument with sources of their own, the interpretation as to whether it passes or not is still in the air.

Since a significant number of users quote AIRCRASH, they are not arguing to keep the subject as a standalone article despite the keep votes. I was seriously considering closing this as merge into Aviation accidents and incidents, per WP:AIRCRASH, but the question of whether or not this article should be a standalone or not hasn't really been answered in this AfD.

I seriously recommend starting a merge discussion into Aviation accidents and incidents and see what the outcome for that is. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622[edit]

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

Not notable incident. Runway overruns are very common. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right now is it to soon to tell if this should be deleted until more information on the accident comes to light. If the aircraft has be written off with any injuries which as yet not been updated but only by a few sources because the accident only happened within the first few hours. I understand the reason for the deletion under WP:NOTNEWS. Since 2017 was the safest for Commercial aviation history making accidents like this even more rare & we could see later if their is any probable cause which leads to any safety recommendations involving the airline or airport. I like to ask why Peruvian Airlines Flight 112 has also not been Articles for deletion? yet a fatel accident in the 2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash Articles is currently under Articles for deletion? Cloverfield2Y (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Awfully foolish to create an article when the information critical to determining notability doesn't exist; in other words, at this point in time the incident is not notable. Wikipedia is not news and the "why does this article exist then?" argument is unconvincing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Had to come back and change my vote based on ongoing coverage. [3][4] Apologies for the previous vote but I decide based on the here and now; this "wait and see" habit we have fallen into is dangerous and can be applied to literally any recent event of anyone's choosing no matter how minor or routine.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- SME speaking. Overrun is not notable, injuries or not. Rhadow (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say too soon to say. When the images which are quite impressive will go around the world, it may grow in interest. Wykx (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article now bashed into some sort of shape. An airliner departs the runway, falls down a cliff and is substantially damaged. That there were no deaths does not take away from the notability of the accident, which meets established criteria for a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The established criteria are the general notability guidelines. If you are referring to AIRCRASH, that has been thoroughly discredited years ago as a result of many AfD discussions and now states merely that an accident may be mentioned in the articles about the airport and the airline and for cases of stand-alone articles, refer to the aforementioned GNG. YSSYguy (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, over-runs are common. Over-runs down the side of a cliff? No. This easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strange und uncommon accident with veering off the runway and going downhill. That and major airframe damage (smells like writeoff) matches inclusion criteria. --Denniss (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the way the plane ended up, on a steep hill with significant damage but remarkably no loss of life, indicates a likely writeoff. Even without the writeoff angle, just the excursion going down the hill is similar to Air India Express Flight 812, although that had loss of life and this did not. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In the photos available it looks very likely to be an airliner hull-loss, so significant enough for an article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep falling down a steep embankment shows that the incident is far more serious and damaging than a regular overrun incident. The media coverage is substantial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – substantial coverage and unusual enough incident. cherkash (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As per the keeps above. Big media coverage. Hull-loss. (Gabinho^>:) 18:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - as a hull loss passes WP:AIRCRASH. More importantly passes WP:GNG, look at the pictures, when is the last time a major aircraft was seen in this situation? Drastic runway overruns in airplanes of this size are quite rare, and the coverage reflects the event's notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One engine detached from wing and lying in the Black Sea? Definitely notable. Fudpukker (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major airline incidents are always notable, there's hundreds of these articles on Wikipedia. See WP:AIRCRASH. Zerbey (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. They are not "always notable", even though this one is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While by a miracle there was no loss of life, I'm pretty sure this is a hull loss, which is the other bar for notability when it comes to a scheduled airliner crash. AIRCRASH and GNG both satisfied, this isn't a case for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This was not an overrun. The plane swerved off to the side before the end of the runway.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not just an overrun. This was a near-catastrophe; it's a miracle nobody was killed. Aftermath itself makes the incident plenty notable. The plane is a hull loss. Any such event is eminently notable... Veryproicelandic (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hull loss and significant incident which will be referred to in future 82.16.59.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Not Notable in long term, insignificant aviation incident.Varmapak ^(talk) 05:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG. Non-notable run of the mill runway excursion, with no infrastructure damage, very limited injuries and probably no hull loss (but that is irrelevant as insurance write-offs do not a hull loss make)! There is NO reason why this minor incident should have a stand-alone accident, but entries in related lists Accidents and incident sections would be welcome!! Why do we keep getting these frivolous attempts to get non-notable accidents stand-alone articles. There is a MOUNTAIN of consensus which can be used to justify deletion or retention!! USE IT BEFORE you write articles and we can all have an easier life!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The notability consist of the weirdness of the occurrence, even more notable as pilots said the plane "suffered sudden engine surge". 2017 being safest year ever for commercial aviation, lots of people have interest in accompanying incidents, and certainly this one will be investigated so Wikipedia is a natural fit for compiling this information. And also to me WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG doesn't fit here, because this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources and is not acting as a newspapers. See as an example Air France Flight 66. 138.118.196.54 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is bound to be an unpopular opinion, but if the subject is deemed notable and we should have a WP article about it, we Delete this version of the article anyway per WP:DENY as the creation of a confirmed Sockpuppet (Cloverfield2Y, who posted a comment immediately below the nominating comments) of the highly-notorious (at least within aviation circles) serial sockpuppeteer and banned User Ryan kirkpatrick. An article can then be created by a editor of good standing. I am leaning towards delete anyway; the crash is obviously unusual, but I am not convinced that "unusual=notable". In this day and age the news media cover everything unusual - last night I saw a detailed report on Australian television of a car that ended up embedded in the second storey of a building in California - so the large number of news reports do not confer notability. This whole thing boils down to the notion that unusual is notable. Will this be remembered as a major event of 2018 in the future? Will there be ongoing coverage beyond this week? I doubt it. YSSYguy (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with your general notion, but you forget this is not a small car with a passenger or two. 1) There were 162 passengers on this flight, i.e. many people involved in a dangerous situation. 2) This is about aviation security, which will always be of very public interest since a lot of people are scared of flying. Because of that, there's a very heavy focus on zero accidents in scheduled commercial flights. This is achieved through thorough investigation of every incident, and especially one like this where lives could have been lost. Wikipedia is a very good public source on these on-going investigations, and therefore, every aviation accident of a more major character, like this one, should be thoroughly documented at Wikipedia for reference. There are other aviation accidents with no casualties here on Wikipedia, but they all share that they could have been very dangerous. This is one of them. And even if not this situation in particular, any similar situation with cliffs etc. by the end of the runway, does share those characteristics. This is definitely close enough to casualties for notability when it comes to aviation!! Dommedagsprofet (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
dont planes crash regularly in third world countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:94 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant comment, Turkey is not a “third world country”. WWGB (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification The section of WP:DENY cited earlier is an essay, not policy, and not only that, it is misconstrued here. The essay states "If you see information pages about vandals or vandalism that you think have no practical purpose,", so it doesn't come anywhere close to saying we should delete a page to punish the creating editor. It has no practicable application here.Jacona (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nuff; if I had realised when I first saw the article that it was the work of a sockpuppet I would have nominated it for a G5 Speedy deletion - it hadn't been touched by others at that stage. This guy has a long track record with some 200 sockpuppets and punishment is entirely appropriate, otherwise it just encourages him. As I said above, if the subject is deemed notable, delete the article anyway and have an editor of good standing re-create it. YSSYguy (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that my vote matters really, but I think this article is insignificant. No reason to keep it around. I agree with what most other delete advocates have already said. Nothing happened really. Take a second to think about it. No injuries, ~~no damage,~~ and no deaths. How is this an accident??? Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why would you say "no damage"? The airliner is most likely a total write-off. - Ahunt (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - fine you are right but it is still insignificant. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The total hull loss of a US$98M airliner is hardly insignificant. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not all about money. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: We I guess you must be very wealthy , or at least not a shareholder in the the airline that had the accident, if you consider losing an asset worth US$98M in a few seconds to be not significant. - Ahunt (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's significant for the airline company. Not for the general wikipedia reader.Tvx1 15:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahunt, please refrain from assuming my wealth please. Although I may have grew up in a wealthy community, don't assume please. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: You are trying to make the case here that a US$98 hull loss is "insignificant", as you put it. I am suggesting you must have a unique point of view that is different from other editors and trying to give you the opportunity to explain yourself and make a case here. So far you are not making a very convincing argument. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wouldn't be surprised if this accident was cited in the creation of a new aviation regulation, maybe now or after a similar accident in the future. Part of a pattern of runway overruns.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact the runway overrun was caused by an engine power surge potentially means there is an issue with the engine model in question, so this might be worth keeping around. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pilot claiming there was an engine surge does not make it so, I have been told all sorts of things by pilots over the years to try to deflect that they have fucked up, but lets assume he is correct. Potentially means there is an issue, so this might be worth keeping around? Is this how far we have lowered the bar now? YSSYguy (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Likely hull-loss, which makes it meet the WP:AIRCRASH guideline. Acebulf (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL transportation incident, got extensive reporting likely because of the dramatic imagery, but still a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Expensive things break all the time. Sandstein 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despairing reversal of non-admin closure in the face of a blizzard of keep votes. WWGB (talk) 11:28, 21 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. Sandstein 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Derek Russell[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO as there are no reliable sources totally independent of the subject that discuss him in detail. Article creator States subject has won multiple significant awards showing he meets WP:CREATIVE, but I've found 0 indication of that. John from Idegon (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll contact the subject, to see if he can provide better references for me. Admittedly, perhaps I can be more specifix with what awards he won.Tr114 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least three references to Russell winning awards for his work. I’m about to cite them properly, but first I’ll share them here. ^[1]^[2]^[3]

Tr114 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting a syndicated podcast with a well-known actor with a large fanbase of nearly 100,000 on Instagram ^[4] as well as winning journalism awards and writing for publications such as DC Comics and appearing in special features for his work on television shows is more than enough to keep this page alive and free of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3014:2504:7A00:F5B5:5BB5:A5AA:2200 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. "X followers" is an argument to avoid, and I'm afraid the awards are regional and relatively minor -- even the 1st place is from a state-level trade industry organization and not signifiant enough to establish notability (and the source is questionable). What's missing is significant coverage about the subject specifically, in independent reliable sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the page creator my opinion is admittedly biased and may not count for much; but if more evidence notability is be needed; I know several of Mr. Russell’s podcasts were featured and reviews in SciFiNow. If I added and cited the issue numbers, would that help the case any? It’s my opinion that the page needs to be expanded, yes, but not deleted. Like many wiki pages, it’s a work in progress. Just because it’s incomplete doesn’t necessarily mean the man doesn’t warrant an article.Tr114 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Russell’s notability, instances of the podcasts he produces being referenced in the mainstream press.

TVLine: ^[5]

Fox News: ^[6]

ET Online: ^[7]

People: ^[8]

Tr114 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI couldn't find a mention of Russell in any of those references. It also appears in this edit caption [5] that the primary contributor is s WP:SPA closely connected to the article's subject. Jacona (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet every single one mentions a show which he created and produces. If the creation is noteworthy, so is the creator. As for the accusation that I’m closely connected to him, while I’ve listened to the shows; I actually sent him correspondence telling him I was making a page and trying to gather more specific information from the source. Such as the years he attended said school and university. Tr114 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the creation is noteworthy, so is the creator -- no, not by the definition of notability we use here, see WP:NOTINHERITED. As for corresponding directly with the article subject to obtain information for the article, that constitutes original research, which is also contrary to Wikipedia policy. Υπογράφω (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I’ve said and done all I can for the case for keeping it. I was unaware of that original research policy, my level of connection to him is that I messaged him privately via twitter to see if he could be kind enough to verify some information for me. He was. Very pleasant man, who I personally believe is noteworthy. That said, if no one else agreed by the notice runs it’s course; I’ll respect the majority decision. I did my best, I’m still a novice editor. I’d rather there not be any hostility over this. I was merely trying to make a page for a man i’ve known of and respects for many years. I didn’t mean to compromise my own effort by reaching out to him personally for that fact check. Tr114 (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2017-03-25/winners-announced-in-mississippi-louisiana-ap-competition
^ Journal, Daily. "Daily Journal staff takes several honors at statewide newspaper awards". djournal.com. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
^ Journal, Daily. "Daily Journal staff takes several honors at statewide newspaper awards". djournal.com. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
^ "Brian Austin Green (@arent_you_that_guy) • Instagram photos and videos". www.instagram.com. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
^ Mitovich, Matt Webb (25 March 2011). "Smallville First Look: Clark's Shocking New Foe!". tvline.com. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
^ "Brian Austin Green on being married to Megan Fox: 'It's hard'". foxnews.com. 22 September 2017. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
^ "Brian Austin Green Says He and Megan Fox Take Relationship 'Day by Day': 'Marriage Is Hard'". etonline.com. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
^ "Brian Austin Green Admits Marriage 'Is Hard' and That He and Megan Fox Take It 'Day By Day'". people.com. Retrieved 6 January 2018.

Delete. Justification for this article seems to argue that a subject’s existence equals being qualified rather than being of encyclopedic importance. Sources are social media/user download sites/small time non-notable publications/trivial mentions by association (e.g. WP:INHERITED), etc. It’s original research built around first hand references rather than significant independent third party verification. Re: the “Award Winning” justification. An award from The Better Newspaper competition held by the Mississippi Press Association—even first place—might look good on one’s linkedin profile, but it doesn’t meet wikipedia’s importance standards. I researched this ([6]) and I can’t even count how many 1st place awards are handed out. And they do it twice a year! ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:12, 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 redirect to Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017. Until somebody writes an article about the specific district election. Sandstein 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Simonds[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. She has never held a political position or office. Additionally, there is not one bit of information about the subject on here that isn't already covered in the Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017 article. Kbabej (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move and create redirect to Virginia's 94th House of Delegates district election, 2017. Per WP:BLP1E, notability is about the event, not the person, but the event is notable enough to be expanded upon and have its own article. Moving would make use of existing article work and preserve article edit history for attribution purposes. A ((main)) link could then be added to the Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017 and Virginia's 94th House of Delegates district pages. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete She is not notable by any metric. Also, the event has been covered in other articles.--2601:2C6:C000:312:550B:89BF:71C2:4A73 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Shelby above. The event has received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017. The election is fairly well covered in that article already.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Redirect to Virginia's 94th House of Delegates district election, 2017 per Shelbystripes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattLongCT (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mojo Hand. She doesn't pass NPOL as an individual, but the situation is certainly notable enough for us to maintain content about it in the election article — though I'm less convinced that it would need its own special standalone article, rather than a subsection in the overview article. Update, due to relist comment: just for clarity's sake, my redirect preference is to the overall Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017. That article already exists — and I sincerely doubt that we would need a whole article about the 94th district race as a standalone topic separate from the statewide election just because that particular district came down to drawing a name out of a hat, so I wouldn't really support creating one just for the sake of redirecting this there. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Coming to a better consensus about the target of a move/redirect would be beneficial. New article at Virginia's 94th House of Delegates district election, 2017 or current article at Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017 as the page exists. If at some point an article is written specifically about the 94th district race, then the redirect could be retargeted. But, that is not a valid option at this moment. --Enos733 (talk) 23:22, 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. Sandstein 12:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relativistic kill vehicle[edit]

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

This article:

Is pretty much completely unsourced original research, except for a single small claim that is unreliably sourced;
seems to meander between hypothetical and fictional topics (I put this under F because it discusses mostly fiction);
does not appear to indicate notability; and
otherwise requires WP:TNT. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A bunch of OR with no proof of notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR as beetle notes DocumentError (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 14 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. Sandstein 21:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Elbouzedi[edit]

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

Subject hasn't played in a fully professional match. Highest level in which he has played is Scottish League Two, which is semi-professional. WP:FOOTYN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has so far played two games in the SPFL under Elgin City, who play in the SPFL (Scottish Professional Football League), and the opening line on the wikipedia page for said league says "The Scottish League Two, known for sponsorship reasons as the Ladbrokes League Two, is the fourth tier of the Scottish Professional Football League, the league competition for men's professional football clubs in Scotland.". Not trying to be rude here, but this quote alone has rendered your Proposed Deletion attempt invalid. If it were semi-professional, that'd be the Highland League and amateur would be Sunday League football. Professional football are the tiers that are officially recognized by UEFA/FIFA. Cheesy McGee. (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the name of the competition is, it's the professional status of the club(s) concerned that matters. Elgin City is a semi-professional club. So sorry for being rude, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. For example, here is an article in the "I" newspaper which says "In Scotland, nearly half of the country’s 42 professional sides can be labelled part-time, with players topping up their full-time job with a minimal wage from football, or simply playing for expenses". When Elgin City advertised for a team manager in November 2014, they specifically said that it was a "part-time position". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League merged in 2013 to form SPFL,[7] so Wikipedia:FPL is over four years out of date. Considering how much we rely on it at AfD, that's a very poor effort. I've already noticed that only US women's soccer is considered notable, which I consider hopelessly biased; ~~so the combination of these two issues have~~ this has me unconvinced about the validity of this system of accessing notability. ~~In any case, this player can be presumed notable, but~~ I'd love to see more citations. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how the SPFL works. The top division (Scottish Premiership) is basically what the Scottish Premier League used to be, the division for the top 12 clubs, who are always fully professional. The second tier (Scottish Championship) usually has a majority of teams that are fully professional (8 teams out of 10 this year, with only Dumbarton and Brechin City being part-time). You sometimes get fully-pro teams in Scottish League One (third tier), and there are a few this year, but the fourth tier (Scottish League Two) almost never has a fully-pro club. Elbouzedi has only appeared in the latter competition for a club's first team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL .Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:07, 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) 15:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vuyane Mhlomi[edit]

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

I doubt that the person is notable. Awards don't seem to be notable, no important publications. Think it should be reviewed by someone with the medical background. Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:some coverage about him, but more in the style of a rag-to-riches human interest story. Nothing to indicate he is a notable Doctor. I don't think the awards are notable themseleves so I don't think they amount to much. Mattg82 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News results show lots of articles about this subject. Notabiloty established per guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as someone else noticed the coverage is more about his getting his PhD than any actual achievements or works. This to me is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of RS. Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article presents no claim of significance. Close to an A7 speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 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. It was deleted and salted by Courcelles. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hazem Ali (researcher)[edit]

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

Non notable programmer. References are either from his own company, or socila media sites. Awards are either just jobs or unexplained. However a claim of importance with apparent appearance in an Egyptian magazine precludes speedy deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 14 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Ward[edit]

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

Minimal notabilty. Long on words and passing mentions, short on reliable sources. Tagged for notability since forever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Any supposed notability appears inherited. Despite an (unjustified) plethora of sources appears to fail SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG]. Notability isn't inherited either....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge mayoress to the article about her quite notable husband. Wp:preserve FloridaArmy (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayors are neither notable nor not notable under WP:NPOL. However, by GNG she doesn't quite fit the criteria. Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is obvious that no one has looked at the sources provided in the article. I wouldn't be opposed to another Wikipedia that is verifiable on the www, but that is not this Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge details should be merged into Whitford Brown. NealeFamily (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, most of the claims to notability are indeed disguised appeals to it being inherited... And does not appear to pass WP:NPOL either. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:40, 21 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 Rename and refocus. Consensus this is about the court case. I'll leave it to editors to do this... Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK article for describing a single WP:EVENT (United States v. Ike Brown). ~~No enduring notability for either the organization or the court case per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRITERIA: little in-depth coverage and no sign of lasting effect.~~ Mentions of topic in books are limited to passing mentions and/or WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC) (edited 04:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC); see below)[reply]

Comment: I would also support a redirect and merge of some content, after appropriate pruning, to Voting Rights Act of 1965 § Impact. The New York Times, along with the one decent book source shown in GBooks, describe the topic in this context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to United States v. Ike Brown; the sources above, plus the articles mentioned below by Mendaliv, seem to show that the court case is notable, but not the County Democratic Committee itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move I don't think there's enough about the organization itself to merit an article. It's been the litigation that attracted the attention. There's significant legal scholarship on this case, as well as a small but decent body of caselaw citing it and its appeal. The coverage in these academic articles taken with the general media coverage ought to overcome GNG at least. Campbell, Donald (2013). "Partisanship, Politics, and the Voting Rights Act: The Curious Case of U.S. v. Ike Brown". Harvard Journal of Racial and Ethnic Justice. 29: 33. Daniels, Gilda R. (2010). "Voter Deception". Indiana Law Review. 43: 343. Chan, Denny (February 2012). "Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and White Americans". U.C. Irvine Law Review. 2: 453. Ross, Deuel (2014). "Pouring Old Poison into New Bottles: How Discretion and the Discriminatory Administration of Voter ID Laws Recreate Literacy Tests". Columbia Human Rights Law Review. 45: 362.
Also, the long opinion the article cites is presumably at 494 F. Supp. 2d 440 (S.D. Miss. 2007). This opinion was affirmed on appeal at 561 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2009). There are also a trio of unpublished district court opinions: 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49834; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53916; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63228. I don't have WestLaw citations for those. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from the WP:LAW talk page. What y'all write above makes good sense from an outsider's perspective, i.e., you all present clear, logical reasons for a merge. (By "outsider" I mean that I lack the in-depth knowledge you all possess.) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't really about the Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee at all, but about the case. Move to United States v. Ike Brown, with redirect in place, add link in Voting Rights Act of 1965. There's already sufficient mention in Noxubee County, Mississippi.Jacona (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to United States v. Ike Brown as per above. The committee likely isn't notable, but all the content is about the case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 21 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) 15:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glenys McQueen-Fuentes[edit]

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

Résumé-toned WP:BLP of a theatre person (I'm not sure precisely what her job title would actually be), with no indication of reliable source coverage about her for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG: the only "references" here are her own (deadlinked) staff profile on the website of her own employer, and the abstract to a piece of her own academic writing. These are not notability-supporting sources -- a person needs to be the subject of media coverage, not the author of her article's sources, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO – no news results, mentioned in books only via self-composed blurbs etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To add, article is all OR, and ORPHAN, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability. Had hopes of her book What if? Why not? but can't trace it in Worldcat, Amazone or elsewhere (several other books of that title, but not one by her). PamD 10:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her role as an actress/producer is way below what would meet the entertainer notability guidelines. Her role as an academic is no where close to being notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boyzone album 2018[edit]

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

Way TOOSOON at the moment, Should obviously be recreated when more details are known like for instance the albums name. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:HAMMER, WP:TOOSOON. Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The albums page will be updated when the albums name is known but if this page is deleted it will just be created when the name of the album is known, image of the album and the date of release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando8039 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create a rough draft in the draft space until it has a name - that's even what I do - but there's a strong consensus that album's that don't have a name, shouldn't have their own article yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draft A simple, clear-cut case of WP:CRYSTAL. Can be moved to draft until such time. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:14, 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 speedy keep. SNOW close as keep, there is a strong consensus that the article is relevant. Merging it to somewhere else is an option but this is not something we discuss at AfD. Tone 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii missile alert[edit]

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

This is not a significant event - similar events have already been covered, as well as this one, on Emergency Alert System#Incidents. Jayden (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This was an alert sent to every smartphone and television set in a U.S. state saying a ballistic missile was about to hit them during a time of heightened tensions between the U.S. and a neighboring nuclear power. I can't remember another incident of this scale in my lifetime. Certainly not in the age of smartphones and social media. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Emergency Alert System#Incidents. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Long term significance is unimaginable. See also WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT. Just because something gets some short term news coverage, even broad coverage, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. To the extent this justifies a mention it can be done in the older article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the "just wait and see" advise in WP:10YT compelling myself. Let's not rush to delete this simply because this event happened a couple hours ago and its place in history has yet to be established. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - While it does have an impact for the state of Hawaii, it doesn't do anything for the rest of the world. If it was a hack or something similar, I can understand further developments down the line that might be worth covering on its own article. However, Hawaii officials have already confirmed that it was them who accidentally sent the alert, therefore making it just another incident involving the EAS and U.S. officials. Jayden (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a dubious explanation, considering The Mercury News just had a report less than a month ago on how agencies in California could model their emergency preparedness for a missile strike off what Hawaii is doing. The explanations for how this happened are also not entirely clear at this time. What's more, I think the impact on a political jurisdiction of more than a million people justifies having a single article on Wikipedia. If this were an emergency alert sent out only to residents of Lincoln, Nebraska, sure, but this was an entire U.S. state that has been under credible threat of a first strike in recent months. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - From WP:EVENT...Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. This is a gross failure of NOTNEWS and yet another example of the persistent mad rush to create articles with dubious claims to encyclopedic notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Also from WP:EVENT: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." I suggest we follow the advice in WP:10YT and "wait and see" what comes of this. Deleting the article now would be premature. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to explicate Kudzu1's earlier point, I'd like to quote a hawaiian resident's comment on one of the earliest news stories I could find:

"Fifteen minutes ago my mom (she lives in Hawaii) sent the following in group text to me and my sisters: "Pray for us. Inbound missile. Civil defense sirens going off". My sisters and I all live on the US mainland. Shortly after I found news that the alert was a mistake, but fuck, man. Nothing quite like thinking your mother is seconds away from dying, and there's nothing you can do. My heart is still pounding." /quote LaceyUF (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This event clearly meets the criteria for standalone inclusion. The argument to merge into another article severely diminishes its real-world significance. LaceyUF (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What real world significance? This is a water cooler news story. A little shocking. But with no enduring significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A little shocking"? That's not how it felt in Hawaii. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem is trying to manipulate the debate by downplaying the event. His language is very telling to anyone with Afd experience. LaceyUF (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose outright deletion. It took 38 minutes to retract the warning so for 38 minutes anyone with a TV or phone in Hawaii thought a missile was inbound during a time of tension with a country (North Korea) that has threatened to strike the US with missiles, certainly a terrifying experience for hundreds of thousands of people in an entire US state, not just one city or small area. There also seems to be extensive coverage of this false alarm and heads might roll at Hawaii's EMA, leading to more coverage. If this dies down with little coverage in the future, a merge might be warranted, but this shouldn't just go away.331dot (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The odds this doesn't end up as an issue in Hawaii's gubernatorial election this year, if nothing else, seem pretty remote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to either the emergency alert noted above article or 2017–18 North Korea crisis. I see no need to scrub any mention of the event from Wikipedia, but I don't see this event having the depth of coverage over time necessary to support a stand alone article. Judicious editing can keep all of the information here as a reasonable sized section in another article.--Jayron 32 21:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if this should be considered as a part of 2017–18 North Korea crisis (I am not sure), it would be best to have as an independent sub-page based on the coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - situation impacted both people on the island and the world. The news spread all over the world within minutes. The article is comprehensive and references well. This passes WP:GNG. The nominator is wrong about this being a non-notable event.BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy unreleased discography[edit]

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

Total lack of notability for this list of unreleased tracks by recent music star. Fram (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does it lack notability? The Beatles bootleg recordings lists unreleased tracks, and so does List of songs recorded by the Beatles. This seems like more of a preference to you, unless you have a plethora of Wikipedia guidelines the article doesn't abide by. A merge would've also been a decent suggestion if you're that unsatisfied by the article. Hypothetically, if this article were to be deleted, how about transferring the info to the Poppy discography. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well Fram seems to want the page removed pretty badly, but he's not replying or countering the arguments. Don't get me wrong, I totally respect his feelings on the matter. But a little participation and feedback'd be nice! Do you have anything else to offer on the matter aside from "This isn't notable. End of discussion."? Would merging be of interest? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would merging a sprawling list of trivia be of interest? Not everything someone notable has ever done is also of interest. We don't include lists of interviews, TV appearances, ... for every notable artist either, even though these are also part of their job and of interest to die-hard fans. That's why fan fora exist, fan websites, things like wikia, ... Fram (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Comparing one of the most recognizable and influential musical acts of all time (The Beatles) to a pop singer who released one moderately successful album (Poppy), is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you agree? Similar lists like this exist, as you mentioned, but those are supported by reliable secondary sources, not Soundcloud and Instagram. Perhaps Poppy -- years from now -- will warrant such a list but only when coverage can establish notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Keep as draft or under construction, or merge to Poppy discography to let the information on the page expand and be corrected (there are presently mistakes in 'original songs'). There are similar pages, so this is consistent with those, as well as the notability of the back-story covered by gathering the unreleased songs on this page. The "present" Poppy has developed and evolved from a storyline presented in her YouTube presence, while this page covers Poppy from her time as "That Poppy", without the storyline. This is a notable distinction, and possibly unique in singer-public-persona-development. Hence its notability. As for the singer's notability, her second major studio album will be released soon, and many people who follow the Poppy-project may be correct in calling her both the Queen of the internet and Queen of the Millennials. This singer's "fame" should expand quickly, so at a minimum let's either keep the page as a draft for a few months or merge to the discography. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other stuff exists" is not how AfD works, and for e.g. the Beatles there are whole books about there unreleased tracks. The reliable, independent sources about the things in this list seem to be rather thin... "The notability of the back-story" is something which sounds nice but doesn't exist in Wikipedia terms. I can't stop anyone from moving this to draft space, but it seems a waste of time and (human) resources to turn something unsalvageable into a draft which needs reviewing before rejection. Fram (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe relevant questions which you or other editors of Wikipedia's music pages can answer. Have there ever been any other unreleased recordings pages written, even counting pages which were then deleted, besides the Beatles page? Without looking I would think that possibly there would be, or have been pages, on the Grateful Dead's, maybe Bob Dylan's, or on many other recording artist's unreleased but existing work. And, again without looking, how are the unreleased, but existing, material for other artist's handled on Wikipedia? Can these songs by That Poppy be listed on the Poppy discography page? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are, and in the case of List of unreleased songs recorded by Pink Floyd and List of unreleased songs by Radiohead, the point is that these songs have been discussed in books or articles by independent sources outside the artists' websites or social media. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And here's a page of unreleased material of the Beach Boys. The Radiohead page you linked doesn't seem to reference books (but that's on a quick look). There may be more. The uniqueness I mentioned earlier, that the artist in question, Poppy, has taken a different and in itself unique path since many of her earlier recordings were made, does seem a notable occurrence and one which may or may not have already been sourced (I don't usually click on many links I don't know, and "jump out" when a link is taking awhile to load, so I limit my internet research). Again, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books, no, but all eight references for the Radiohead article are from established and reputable music magazines – what it shows is that these songs have been discussed by outside sources. Whereas at present, the unreleased Poppy songs haven't been talked about in any reliable sources, just fan sites and various Wikias. To me, they aren't any different from any other budding singer-songwriter uploading their cover version to their YouTube or Soundcloud channel.

Incidentally, it appears that all these tracks can be freely downloaded from her Soundcloud site, which opens up another debate as to whether a song that can be accessed by anyone and added to an MP3 library is truly "unreleased"... Richard3120 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't know how Soundcloud works, are the releases there approved by the artist? I was wondering why some of the songs which have been removed elsewhere on youtube are played there. If so, then can the songs be listed on her regular discography page instead of a separate page (which may be a good compromise consensus for this page)? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the owner of the Soundcloud channel to decide whether to make the songs downloadable or not. Richard3120 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AlexanderHovanec, most of the "original unreleased music" are also cover versions, so it makes no sense to split the songs in this article into two separate lists. Richard3120 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's barely music released to enough to warrant a split off to a separate discography, let alone a second one that documents only her unreleased material. Unreleased material can sometimes have a place on Wikipedia, but not like this with this sort of new artist with so little content released. Note how any examples listed above have been decade spanning artists (or hugely prolific ones - Beatles released 12 albums in less than a decade.) It's also sourced to social media and soundcloud. To meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, there should be many reliable, third party sources (professional musical critic types) that write detailed articles about her collective unreleased work. If that exists, the article certainly doesn't show it. Delete the article, but any song that can be sourced to a third party reliable source could be added to the article of the respective released music articles (Song A was recorded for the debut album, but was left off.(reference)) or to her respective article in the history section (Song B was released on December 24 as a free download for fans for Christmas.(reference).) Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hehe. Upon the articles creation, I knew it'd be met with these kind of responses. This was as expected, and I completely understand how an article such as this may not make Wikipedia's cut. So is anyone up for a comprimisable "merge"?
Delete - I am not opposed to this type of information in Wikipedia, but a separate article is not warranted. If any of the unreleased songs have achieved notability on their own terms they can be mentioned at the artist page or her discography page, with sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, transferred the info for now. (Merged.) Any other input'd be great. 👌 -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated multiple times, each entry needs to be sourced to comply with the most basic requirements of Wikipedia, or they're going to be removed from there too. Sergecross73 msg me 11:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexanderHovanec: the only "compromise" that can be made is that you provide sources for the unreleased songs that don't come from Poppy's own social media accounts. Otherwise as Sergecross73 says, they will have to be deleted because they fail WP:V, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Richard3120 (talk) 14:02, 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 keep. Clearly notable but needs an overhaul and sources added. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C.[edit]

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

Long rambling story with no sources or focus. No sourcing found, largely redundant to parent. If there is keepable material here, then merge or WP:TNT Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Long rambling story" might be reason for it to not win a Booker Prize, but I don't see its relevance to a football club. We're not judging the article for its narrative qualities. We have an article on Oldham Athletic, with a vast number of pages in the related category. For an obvious notable UK football club, an article on their history seems entirely appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Football club histories are considered notable. The page may be in need of improvement, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Eagleash (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources available, if only the nominator had performed a 5 seconds Google Books search:
- Oldham Athletic on This Day: History, Facts & Figures from Every Day of the Year, by Dave Moore
- Oldham Athletic A Pictorial History, by Tony Bugby
- The Legends of Oldham Athetic, by Garth Dykes
- Legends of Oldham Athletic Afc, by Simon & Schuster
- Pine Villa and Oldham Athletic: A 100 Year Journey, by Stewart William Beckett
- Latics Lads: The Official Who's who of Oldham Athletic A.F.C., 1907-2002, by Garth Dykes

I'm not even venturing into other types of sourcing, since the topic is clearly notable. Next time, please don't forget to do a WP:BEFORE. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is clear consensus that club history articles such as this are notable and it would be a simple step to add sources to the page. Not too mention WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Kosack (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid breakout article from the main club article (many equivalent articles are FAs), and given that there are at least six published books on the history of the club (the existence of most of which was confirmed for me within the first two pages of a Google search (regular Google search, not even Google Books) for "history Oldham Athletic"), the notion that no sourcing could be found looks a bit ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Why is this article even brought to AfD, it needs a lot of help to improve it and not assign it to the wiki-bin, also a note to @TenPoundHammer:, can you please stop nominating articles for AfD which are well known subjects, just add needs citation tags to tops of article instead or simple go to google and get those citations! Govvy (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above . Clearly Valid split from main article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RetiredDuke: @Kosack: @ChrisTheDude: @Pharaoh of the Wizard:SO WHERE ARE THE SOURCES?!? Just saying they're there, or that the article is Useful, is in no means valid. Did any of you add any of the so-called sources you supposedly found? Are ny of you going to fix it, or are you just going to let it sit and rot in this shitty ass fucking state forever? Apparently just saying something is notable and useful is all we need anymore? In that case, let me make an article about the cup of gas station coffee on my desk. It exists, it's notable, and I don't need sources, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back off. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune substantially. There is far too much emphasis on the last few decades. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:57, 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. WP:SNOW close. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Moldova[edit]

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

Meandering mess with no central topic, no sources, no notability. If there is a topic here, then WP:TNT and start over. This has been sitting to rot for over 10 years and no one will even so much as look at it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If there is a topic here"? Do you think that there might not be any education in Moldova? Maybe you class it as a shithole country? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable and AfD is not cleanup. WP:TNT is not policy; our actual policy is that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Andrew D. (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been racking my aging brains to try to remember where such an offensive statement was made in a deletion nomination statement before, and have just remembered that it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre of Zambia, where it was claimed that there might be no theatre in Zambia, and it turns out that it was the same nominator as here. Do you realise just how racist such comments are? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to IP comments I find nothing offensive about the nominator's reasoning this AFD. The question is not whether there is no education in Moldova but the problems with the article's content. If you have a problem with the nominator personally, please use the appropriate pages elsewhere on WP. Mattg82 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator very clearly did raise the question of whether there is no education in Moldova. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree the article needs cleaning up, but the topic of education in a sovereign state is clearly notable. Ajf773 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cleaned the article up to make it more presentable and removed the statistics which I think was the main problem. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can improve and expand it. Mattg82 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be in a shabby state, but there is certainly coverage out there to support its notability. A WP:BEFORE returns the following: a magazine article, an article from the World Bank, a full study published in this book, a chapter in this book, and another chapter in this book. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: And these sources have been added to the article, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little info to the article. You ought to read the relevant policy concerning these matters that Andrew mentioned. You said that this subject had "no sources, no notability", though it would seem without checking WP:BEFORE. I generally consider myself an exclusionist, but I find your AfD campaigns to be counterproductive. If you are so bothered by all these poor articles, why don't you look for the sources and then add the relevant information to the article yourself? I think that would be a more constructive use of your time than nominating all these articles for deletion because they are low quality (not per policy or failure to meet WP:GNG). -Indy beetle (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am baffled to see "Education in (recognized country)" in AfD! Very soon we will start seeing the whole country themselves –Ammarpad (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even without cleanup, this subject is clearly suitable for the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of the footnotes could be also citing certain sources for the standpoint as well. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator may be right that the WP:TNT approach is indicated, but that is not an argument for deletion (in fact, it is an implicit argument against). --Lambiam 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andrew Davidson says it best. This topic is clearly important to cover and a bad article is better than nothing. There is no deadline. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ajf773 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I fail to understand how a topic about shopping centres existing out-of-town can be notable. No sources provided giving any indication this is a notable topic so appears to be a simple case of WP:NOR and WP:NLIST. This article has survived two AfD's one as part of a bulk nomination and another as procedural keep (due to blocked nominator) Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between out-of-town and in-town shopping centres is very commonly made. For example just look at the first few books found by this search. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that this is a notable distinction for a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IDONTUNDERSTANDIT is not a valid reason for deletion.

The notion of "out of town shopping" is a serious planning issue in the UK, probably the rest of Europe too. In the US it's just a done deal. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In all of the articles in the list, the distinction of 'out-of-town' doesn't even get a mention. It's original research. Do we need a list of in-town shopping centres too? Ajf773 (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not the arbiter of whether a term is significant or not. Also the claim "'out-of-town' doesn't even get a mention" seems a bit hollow when it's right there in the article name. It is far from WP:OR to see that the rise (and maybe fall) of out-of-town shopping in the UK is an issue taken very seriously for planning, town centre redevelopment, the retail industry and even motorway design, to the point where it's part of the school exam curriculum in geoography.

Hillier, Terry J. (1971). "Out of Town regional shopping centres". International Journal of Physical Distribution. 1 (3): 146–153. doi:10.1108/eb038840.
Ruston, Phil (1998). Out of Town Shopping: The Future of Retailing. British Library Science Reference & Information Service. ISBN 0712308482.
"Out Of Town Shopping Centres". GeoBytesGCSE. 2007.
"High Street vs Out of Town Shopping". Mintel. December 2010.
"A brief history of the shopping centre". The Daily Telegraph. 19 April 2013.
David Boyle (22 June 2014). "In Britain, like the US, the out-of-town shopping giants are dying". The Guardian.
"Meadowhall - an out-of-town shopping centre case study" (PDF). Teachit Geography. 2014.
"South West sees surge in out-of-town retail". Colliers International. 11 July 2016.

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about the concept of out-of-town shopping centres being a notable topic - perhaps there is, write an article about it sometime. I'm talking about the article list itself. There is no clear inclusion criteria for each of the listed articles (as there is no mentioned of being 'out-of-town' in their content) which is why I've flagged this as WP:OR. We could remove the original research but all it would yield would be a bare list. Ajf773 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination was quite clear, " a topic about shopping centres existing out-of-town " - are you now changing it? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ajf773 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these are mentioned in several books, and it's usually the same shopping centres:[8][9][10]; there's a list of "regional shopping centres" or "regional malls"[11] which is a less commonly used phrase but may be more precise (outlet malls such as Freeport Braintree are sometimes called out-of-town shopping centres). Peter James (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter James: Thanks for these references! XOR'easter (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to Out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom, adding more historical/urban planning perspective on the general topic, per the comments above. (E.g., "Out-of-town shopping in the United Kingdom is an issue considered for urban planning, town centre redevelopment, the retail industry and even motorway design. Due to its significance for these issues, it has been included in the school exam curriculum in geography.") XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So who's going to do that? The common scenario of keep outcomes seems to be nothing discussed in the AfD ever gets done. Ajf773 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what have you done to encourage the improvement of articles? It's easy to keep slating things for deletion, but it's also a great way to piss off just those who might be the ones to work on improving them. And this goes double for Hammer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Ajf773 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians."

So how about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important human geography topic, widely studied at schools as part of the National Curriculum. Article seems to be well referenced. ▲RedScrees (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update courtesy of XOR'easter who has salvaged the article from certain fate by properly referencing content I've agreed to withdraw the nomination and rename to Out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom as per suggested. Ajf773 (talk) 17:41, 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. Sandstein 21:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chantry Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Appears to be part of a notable rock band but lacks notability as an individual musician. I failed to locate significant coverage of reliable and independent sources about the person. — Za wl 21:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage independent of band to justify an independent article on Johnson.John Pack Lambert (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anansesem Ezine[edit]

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

Sources provided are almost all of the wrong kind -- either primary sources, a blog or something else like that. The only half-good one is the Bajan reporter source. Google search not very convincing. Fails WP:WEB, it seems. !dave 21:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lack of activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The website has not garnered significant attention in reliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 21:51, 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 keep. Sandstein 21:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khan (Pakistan Army officer)[edit]

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

Not of general rank. No coverage. Fails WP:NSOLDIER. Störm (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to claim notability as author of one book. No references are given to support notability for the book or author or even to prove the subject wrote the book.--Rpclod (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per WP:AUTHOR(1) (as well as being close to a SOLDIER pass), and just plain GNG. Sources to establish notability of the book are not hard to find - e.g. LITERARY NOTES: The 100 best Urdu books or Bored engineer came up with a best-seller (describing how a different author - Abdullah Hussain "He adopted a co-worker's name, Abdullah Hussain, to avoid confusion with his namesake, the noted humour writer Colonel Muhammad Khan.").Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. Definitely passes AUTHOR and GNG. There are certainly issues with NOR and NPOV given the state of the citations in the article, but I don't see a convincing case that this is grounds for deletion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the sources provided by Icewhiz, the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. Pratyush (talk) 18:21, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sardars of Vahali[edit]

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

We don't have such articles unless there is significant coverage. No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - owning land in two villages is insufficient notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -I'm open to changing my mind, but it appears to me that, despite there is only one source in the article at present, it is still on a notable topic. Though I don't own a copy, it appears they are also covered in "Punjab Chiefs" as well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with Eddie's comment above, some history articles are difficult to source and may require a trip to the library or more specialized research, but it does seem like more sources can be found for this. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. Really needs more sourcing. I could be convinced to go the other way if no more sources find their way to the article. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has existed since June of 2012. How many more years do you think should be given for sources to find their way?--Rpclod (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sir a tad impatient? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as with the nom, I'm not seeing significant coverage - if it hasn't shown up afer five years, it ain't gonna! BURLEY-XXII 07:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burley22 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Strong Keep What is coverage with history? This is an historical article, not a modern article, it won't have coverage in the normal sense. This tribal group worked as administrators, or Majordomos with Shah Jahan from 1666 to other king type dynasties to roughly 1947, which means the articles period covers 300 years. An immense amount of time. The article will be expanded out, in due course, with many dozens of refs. It is clearly notable, and passes WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 14:01, 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lay It on Me (Ina Wroldsen and Broiler song)[edit]

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

Ranking on music charts in only one country does not establish notability per WP:NSONGS. Hayman30 (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article could be expanded with a bit more information in its current state but am aware that it's a bit bare at the moment. If not, however, it should probably be redirected. Ss112 08:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Unless I've misread it, WP:NSONGS does not mention having to chart in multiple countries. As above though is does need some more info. Usually getting certified Platinum means a song has entered into popular culture enough to make it notable, at least in Norway anyway. Mattg82 (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattg82: Quote "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." I might be overly fussy here but the song has only charted on 1 music chart and 1 sales chart, both of which are Norway charts. Besides, "this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." Can't really see how going platinum in one country would make it notable. Hayman30 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to redirect then if no other claims to notability are forth coming. Mattg82 (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NSONG criteria. Nothing indicates the song has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpclod (talk • contribs) 12:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONG there needs to be enough content for a standalone article SeraphWiki (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss New Hampshire's Outstanding Teen[edit]

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

There is some coverage (very little) of individual pageants, but no coverage of the organization itself. The massive amount of poorly sourced information about minors who are not notable is troubling here. John from Idegon (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is still a sizable portion of the USA population who enjoys pageants. And there are multiple reliable sources from local communities. Regionalism/localism and rural communities are experiencing a resurgence in importance too.Knox490 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant third party references establish notability --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per third party sources.BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable pageant. Article exists for promotional purposes. I'd be happy to be convinced, if WP:SIGCOV on this event is presented in the course of this AfD. Stating that a sizable portion of the USA population who enjoys pageants and significant third party references establish notability without citing the sources is not helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage of this state level teen pageant to justify an article. Knox490 needs to stop confusing themself for a substantial portion of the US population.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. The reliable citations contain trivial (if any) mentions about the pageant and say more about Miss New Hampshire and its contestants. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants#New Hampshire Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If by merge you mean taking the BLP violating content from this article and adding to the BLP violating material at the target article, hell no. John from Idegon (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely not. I merely meant to add the content from the separate page so that it matches the other sections of Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants. Do not keep the BLP violating material, merely add enough so that it matches Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants#California in respects to information. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SPINOUT. If there is concern that the Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants article should not exist, then let that page be nominated for deletion. But given that the article does exist, and given further that it reached a "keep" decision when nominated in 2015, it is now time to face the fact that it would be too large if it hosted the results for every state and every year. Spinning out separate articles for separate sub-topics is appropriate, and using "by state" as the criterion is a reasonable way to do it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 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. But the contents can be restored if somebody actually wants to integrate the sources cited here into the article. As it is, the one-paragraph article cites no sources, and nobody argues that the content now in the article is covered by the sources cited here. The article therefore fails the core policy WP:V, which requires that sources are cited in the article (not merely that they exist somewhere) in order to allow readers to verify that the contents aren't just somebody's invention. Until somebody wants to actually write a competent article, core policy mandates deletion. Sandstein 21:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buzmi[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any sources that determines that this is/was even a real thing. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 06:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Books shows traces of "Buzmi Bujar" in Albanian, German and French sources. A Google Translate of the description in this 2010 Telegrafi item also seems broadly in line with the article text. AllyD (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches linked by the nomination, as I said when I contested WP:PROD deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no sources! Even can delete per WP:EVERYTHING Safe My Edit (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability depends on the existence of sources, not their current citation in the article. I would prefer not to add sources in languages that I don't read fluently without spending a lot more time on checking than I have available now, because I might get something wrong, but their existence is not in doubt. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, let alone authoritative references, are provided. Nothing supports notability or even factuality.--Rpclod (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, here's a 9-page scholarly paper about this precise topic published by the Kunstkamera. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that this paper confirms that this a ceremony involving a log, and relates it to similar festivals in Serbia and Croatia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pages 244-246 of this book are about this festival. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this paper confirms that this festival involves much eating and drinking. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this paper links this festival to others in Greece, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Italy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me. Expand the article. Add the references. You apparently have a passion for the subject. Go for it.--Rpclod (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above I prefer to leave that to editors with more fluency in Russian and Spanish than I have. I know those languages well enough to see that the sources have significant coverage of the subject (I even have an A level in Russian, but that was over 40 years ago), but not well enough to be sure of accurately reflecting what those sources say in our article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ethnographic articles about folk traditions in Balkan countries are valuable often have sourcing issues in English, and the fact that this one is unsourced is not great, but I see plenty of sources higher up in the discussion. I highly doubt this is a hoax. This page needs a comprehensive cleanup and expansion with sources, not deletion.--Calthinus (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a heathen who speaks non-English languages only to the extent of a handful of tourist phrases (except German, where I can stretch it to 2 handfuls). So, I'm relying on the good faith of those commenting above to accurately reflect the situation. While actually utilising them to expand the article is proving linguistically problematic, there is a decent amount of sources showing lasting coverage. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and we should WP:AGF the sources given that they are from academic book and renown library not from random websites. In DYK many articles sourced to foreign-language only do make it to front page on AGF. We shouldn't delete this because we can't understand the language, especially since it is not BLP. I came across this article via Special:Random –Ammarpad (talk) 13:43, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Killed the Prom Queen / Parkway Drive: Split CD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate this is a notable recording as required by WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Described in reliable sources, sufficient content for a stand alone article. I have recently added refs and content.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I always forget to check Australian sources when I look at Australian bands. I can't withdraw since one editor has agreed, but I would be happy to have this closed as keep at this point with the new sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Shaidar cuebiyar has provided sufficient reliable sources to justify its inclusion, under WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources given are not authoritative. Many are just links to other Wikipedia articles, which is inappropriate. Others appear to be links to record label sites. Regardless, nothing indicates that the album itself is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient WP:RS.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clean Up This article can be made sufficient, but sources which are links to other wikipedia projects or mirrors should be replaced with actual independent sources. SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) -- striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Knot[edit]

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

References seem to point to non-notable sources and an interview. A WP:BEFORE didn't seem to reveal much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the article cites "non-notable sources" seems a little bit overboard - there are links to videos of the band performing at Hash Bash in front of 10,000 people, and an article on mlive.com stating that they performed at Hash Bash in front of 10,000 people - a search of mlive revealed that in 2012 they had a readership of over 46,000 subscribers. There is also a link to the ballot page for the 2017 Jammies, where their 2 nominations are listed. There is also an article in the Holland Sentinel, the newspaper covering northern Michigan, with a readership of over 10,500 Daily 17,000 Sundays, not counting the online readership. There is also a link to the Relix Jam Band charts, where they are currently listed. There is also an article in localspins, and an alexa search for localspins.com shows that they receive thousands of visitors every week.

• Bimple124 (talk) 4:54, 30 December 2017 (utc)

I added several more references to Cosmic Knot wikipedia page today, and hopefully that will help to dissuade any fears that anyone might have regarding creation or inclusion of this wikipedia page. I don't understand what the problem is regarding this band having a wikipedia page - they are an actual band, that has been around for a couple years, that has recorded an album, and it is doing well on the jam band radio charts, and they have received awards for their music as well.

•Bimple124 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

accessdate for links added - refs are all current

•Bimple124 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•Vote to Keep Bimple124 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe merge to Tom Wall (guitarist). Not enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and no other criterion of WP:NBAND appears to be met. A merge to Wall's article is a possibility, although I'm not convinced of his notability. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing indicates this is anything more than a decent local band. Not notable for WP purposes.--Rpclod (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article seems perfectly fine to me, and is better documented than some more "famous" bands that I have seen on WP. Jefstevens (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything coming close to meeting our sourcing requirements here. Delete as non-notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 21 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. Sandstein 21:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Planet[edit]

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

Article about a retail clothing store, not citing any reliable source coverage besides its own self-published website. I tagged this for notability and referencing when it was first created in 2016, but didn't list it for deletion at the time because the potential for notability does exist — but the history since then has consisted of an anonymous IP adding a blatantly advertorial branding statement and removing the maintenance tags in June 2017, which then remained virtually unchanged but for very minor style and formatting adjustments until another anonymous IP stripped the advertorialism two hours ago. In all that time, nobody has ever added any reliable sources to demonstrate notability, but I can't find any quality coverage about it on a Google News search either — all I'm seeing is glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of malls that it happens to have locations in, and entirely unrelated usages like a Time article about the need to reconcile urban growth with environmental sustainability. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but an unsourced statement that a thing simply exists is not what gets it an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete it's hard to believe this business even actually exists, particularly with "100+" locations, considering there is absolutely no coverage anywhere about them other than their own website ... I almost think this could be a hoax Burley22 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, its existence does get namechecked in coverage of some of the malls where it happens to have locations — so it's quite verifiable that it exists. It just isn't the subject of enough coverage in its own right to qualify for an article, which isn't the same thing as being a hoax. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 14 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. Ultimately the "delete" arguments appear stronger; the contention that coverage in cited sources is peripheral remains unrebutted. Can be recreated if substantial (probably Russian) sources are found. Sandstein 21:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Kartsev[edit]

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

Per WP:NACTOR. Insignificant coverage of work in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough in Google Books to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Books results: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Michig (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but think those are peripheral references and insufficient to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Wallhauser Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, his only positions were of non-cabinet level state agencies and chairman of a county political party. He also was an unsuccessful congressional candidate, which also does not establish notability. His father was a congressman, but notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Souring is routine coverage (an obituary and few other articles where he is mentioned but not the subject of the article). Rusf10 (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a non-notable New Jersey politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is enough information from reliable sources for a standalone article per GNG. --RAN (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As expanded by RAN, this meets the WP:HEYMANN standard, with appropriate reliable and verifiable sourcing to back his claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "chairman of the New Jersey Highway Authority" - statewide appointed office. Good expansion by other users as well. Scanlan (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. The article has six sources from the NYT covering a period of 1968 to 1977, a period predating the internet. Also a WP:HEY to RAN. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet POLITICIAN or GNG by any stretch. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Wallhauser was a failed candidate for US House, which NPOL states does not guarantee notability. In addition, the offices he held were not cabinet offices or executive positions. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable local politician; does not meet WP:NPOL. Coverage is routine for this level of positions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Guevarra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I realize that the PBA is not listed among the WP:NBASKETBALL power leagues, but the PBA is fully professional league in existence since 1975. The subject appears to be notable even within the context of a non-power league. While I doubt anyone will confuse the subject with LeBron, the subject appears to have sufficient notability to warrant retention.--Rpclod (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep 3 time slam-dunk winner. [17], [18], lots of significant coverage in reliable sources, clearly meets gng. Here's a link to articles at the Philipine Star list of star articles referencing Rey Guevarra Jacona (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a further parade of sources at the Manila Standard, for instance, he was the country's headliner for the Fiba 3x3.Jacona (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's more at the Philippines Daily Inquirer. (actually even more here than at the others.) This deletion nomination is ludicrous.Jacona (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I don't read tagalog, search at various Philippine newspapers (i.e. the Bandera Inquirer) in Tagalog reveals a huge number of articles with Rey Guevarra and other terms such as PBA, images of hoops or other clues that reveal the articles to be coverage of Guevarra. This whole set of deletion nominations of PBA players is fraught with WP:BIAS and a failure to execute WP:BEFORE.Jacona (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of biased PBA deletion nominations of which I'm aware, and to which the above comments apply include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, 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.Jacona (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, here's a list of PBA players (and coaches) who have recently been deleted, either through PROD or AfD, though probably all should have been kept if not for language and location bias. 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) 21:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One notability criteria for association football (soccer) players is playing for a team included on the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. WikiProject Basketball maintains a similar list of full professional basketball leagues which includes the PBA. The preamble suggests:

This page is part of the WikiProject on Basketball and provides a list of known fully professional leagues, and also those that are known to not be fully professional. As such this article can be used as an aide in considering the WP:NBASKETBALL guideline, which states that "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable."

Despite this suggestion, the NBasketball notability criteria does not currently include this and I can only guess that this element was removed at some time. I recommend that you consider joining Wikipedia Basketball to advocate for the list's (re?)inclusion in the NBasketball notability criteria or ask the m e m b e rs why the list is not referenced. O t h ers who have edited the NBasketball segment may also have some idea.--Rpclod (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A potential compromise solution might be to lobby on the talk page associated with WP:NBASKETBALL to modify the third criteria to expand the list to all professional basketball leagues. That is, the play would need to win an award, lead the league in a major statistical category, or - I would recommend similar to the ice hockey criteria - have played at least 200 games.--Rpclod (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, failure to meet the guidelines in NBasketball does not mean that a basketball player is necessarily excluded from coverage. See the preamble to the Notability (sports) page and also the Basic criteria for sports notability. The criteria provide a presumption of notability. Notability can also be achieved through WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO criteria. That was essentially my argument in my weak keep !vote.--Rpclod (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special guidelines like WP:NBASKETBALL provide loopholes to achieve notability for a subject that fails to meet the general notability guideline (GNG). If the subject meets GNG, no special criteria are needed.Jacona (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, that is not their intent. What NBASKETBALL does is try to give editors an idea of what types of articles likely will meet GNG. Given the number of people who nominate articles for AfD without doing a proper WP:BEFORE search, this is valuable. The actual guideline only contains a handful of leagues (6 domestic leagues and 3 continental leagues) - and the Philippine Basketball Association is not one of them. The SSG also helps with leagues like the Greek League, where more sources are not in English and are hard for non-native speakers to search. If a subject meets NBASKETBALL you can still nominate it for AfD if it doesn’t meet GNG. By the same token, the guideline was written understanding that if a subject meets GNG they don’t have to meet the SSG. There are hundreds of (for example) French League players over time who meet GNG. But since it isn’t all of them (or close to it), it’s not in the guideline. The list Rclod links (“fully professional league”) was created by one user and never agreed to/adopted as the guideline. All players who have appeared in one game for any professional league are not notable. I get tired of people complaining about the SSGs generally and NBASKETBALL specifically. The guideline is pretty accurate and if there are individual cases where an editor disagrees we can discuss them. This article and others from the PBA aren’t covered under it though. That doesn’t mean the subjects aren’t notable, you just need to base decisions on GNG Rikster2 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is a current discussion underway to add the PBA to NBASKETBALL (see here). My request is for someone to do the analysis to see if it is true that all players meet GNG (test the players who don’t receive much playing time, test the historical player who appeared in one game, etc). I am sure this proposal is in response to the recent targeting of player articles from this league. My issue is that while I suspect the league may meet the standard (the PBA enjoys extremely high popularity domestically so my guess is there are a plethora of sources available), the vast majority of PBA articles are either unsourced or contain no independent, reliable sources (only League-published content, for example). This isn’t acceptable and I am sure is why these articles are being “tested.” And rightfully so, it is lazy to create articles and not effectively source them. Rikster2 (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rikster2, that my attempt to explain the sport-specific guideline offends, that is not my intent. The intent is to show, as you do, that GNG is not in any way overruled by NBASKETBALL. It appears that the nominating editor is attempting to use NBASKETBALL to purge the encyclopedia of notable articles they don't like. Whether the articles include the reliable sources is not a valid reason for deletion, what matters is if they are available. In every single one of these cases multiple reliable sources are easily found, and that has been demonstrated. In some of these, the number of available sources are overwhelming. If one takes any of the popular English-language newspapers from the Philippines and do a search, they'll be easily found. It appears the nominator is just putting PBA articles up for deletion with no real attempt to find sources.Jacona (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Do a little WP:BEFORE next time. Smartyllama (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 21 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) 11:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Benz[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. No awards (only a nomination) and no notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources[19][][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] and meets PORNBIO #1 & #2. –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:PORNBIO, was nominated for but did not receive an award and mainstream acting roles are not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sourced proposed above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- the sources lined above by Davey are the types of sources I addressed in my nomination:

passing mentions,
casting announcements,
blogs,
industry PR materials,
online directories,
cover Prince Yahshua injury incident (not the subject) etc.

These sources are not suitable for establishing notability. I don't see WP:SIGCOV here that would be needed for a neutral BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a collection of PR and other puff sources does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Her mainstream appearances aren't significant enough to save the article. She was eliminated early on the VH1 reality show, in Witless Protection she has a minor role (on IMDb, its not even listed what her characters name is) in and I see no evidence online that Disciple has even been released. It doesn't even appear to have an IMDb page.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 20:36, 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. Non policy based keep votes for unestablished editors get little weight. The assertions of adequate sourcing fall down agaibst detailed discussion of them by delete side. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Biddle[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Article is a vanity advertisement for subject. References are brief mentions or articles written by subject. reddogsix (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Note that I am the original author of the article. Let me copy what has already been entered on the article's talk page (without response there) by myself and another editor (@JGehlbach:) in response to the initial addition of advert, notability, and BLP sources and refimprove banners so this all does not get lost:

---(start of copy)----

New article published

I am publishing this article now which I created in my user-space. I believe I wrote this in as neutral manner as was possible given the references available on the subject. I specifically looked for criticism/critiques of Biddle as I was worried about the appearance of the article having a Biddle-positive POV, but can find NOTHING. If anyone can find any such material, please feel free to add it! RobP (talk) 11:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Objection to proposed deletion

I take issue with the proposed deletion, and with the advert, notability, and refimprove tags:

advert The article's author stated above that no criticism could be found despite a search, and explicitly left the door open for other editors to contribute some. If there are NPOV problems, please provide examples.

notability Established through the subject's mention in notable publications including: Popular Mechanics Atlantic 10 News Tampa Live Science People/Celebrity Conventionally published books by at least two notable authors.

BLP sources and refimprove Article is well referenced and does not rely excessively on primary sources. I'm removing all the tags discussed above.

JGehlbach (talk) 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Thank you. After seeing with great surprise that Biddle's notability was in question, I researched the topic and found this on Wikipedia:Notability (people):

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded[1]"

I bolded the part that I believe is, without a reasonable doubt, applicable to the subject. Biddle is significant, interesting and unusual in that he has not only walked both sides of the paranormal divide, (can you find ANYONE else in this category?) but is now an active participant in the scientific skeptical movement, detailing for the world how his former paranormal-enthusiast peers are off-base. RobP (talk) 6:33 pm, Today (UTC−5)

---(end of copy)----

Also, what does "non-trivial support" mean? Don't you mean you think there IS just trivial support (meaning references?) for the article? Of course, I strenuously disagree with that assessment. And, can I vote? RobP (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006: Of course you can. Since the importance of votes is considered by their arguments according to policies, if doing so, I recommend highlighting the independent sources demonstrating notability. —Paleo Neonate – 11:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that he just slides through. I personally do not like tagged articles so I will clean up the article so that all COI and AD concerns are met. As for sourcing, I think that they are sufficient, barely so. Elektricity (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on how he slides through? I see basically no strong references.104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reflist contains many instances of Facebook and Youtube as sources. Most others are sketchy site, self published or Amazon! The one good ref (Atlantic) was a minor one sentence mention. Fails GNG.medicine104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are cherry picking and mentioning only the low hanging fruit. Once notability is established, such sources are permitted. What about Popular Mechanics, 10 News Tampa, Live Science, People, Skeptical Inquirer and the books Biddle was mentioned in? RobP (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the solitary Facebook source, that page is the article subject's chosen primary web presence. In the present context with no alternative available and notability arguably established, I dispute that it's a problem. JGehlbach (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which source sites you consider "sketchy". JGehlbach (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be group self-promotion. Regardless, WP:ANYBIO criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, that point is made out of context.... The lead in to the WP:ANYBIO subsection clearly states: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
Second, what is GROUP self-promotion? You just invented a new category for COI out of whole cloth. I am a proud scientific skeptic (as it says on my user page) and noticed that the subject active in that area had no article, but I thought should. Is that a COI now? Can a doctor not write an article on medicine, or on any famous person in medicine?... Where would THAT end? Should people only write about what they don't care about? Only people disinterested in sports write about baseball... Good luck with that policy.
Third, why is no-one addressing the points made by JGehlbach, or my point above that Wikipedia:Notability (people) includes the condition "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", and that the subject clearly fits THIS notability criteria? The entire pertinent part reads as follows: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." As I said above, and which has not been countered in this discussion: that Biddle is significant, interesting and unusual in that he has not only walked both sides of the paranormal divide, (can you find ANYONE else in this category?) but is now an active participant in the scientific skeptical movement, detailing for the world how his former paranormal-enthusiast peers are off-base." RobP (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you're WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion.104.163.153.162 (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus what RobP cites are just references to potential definitions found elsewhere. This article needs to meet at least the Wikipedia basic and biographical criteria. The example containing "unusual" is merely a reference to an Encarta definition.--Rpclod (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My objections to the original proposed deletion (posted on the article's Talk page and pasted above in this discussion) remain unanswered. I fail to see the rationale for going to AfD without responding to those objections in the Talk page. I will also echo Rp2006's call for a definition of group self-promotion. JGehlbach (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, self-promotion backed up by a raft of non-independent references and trivial mentions. Melcous (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per Melcous.Winged Blades^Godric 06:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person's biography is based on citations from notable publications like Popular Mechanics, The Atlantic, People Magazine and 3 non self-published books, 2 of which are written by notable people. He is in the unique position of having supported paranormal ideas and is now considered an expert in countering paranormal ideas. This seems to pass the test for a person of note deserving of a Wikipedia page.KoKoCorvid (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. a mention in Popular Mechnics is not enough to support notability, and essentially everything else here was either written by the subject. And a self-published book tends to indicate lack of notability , not notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: You may have misread the previous keep-vote. It notes the three books as being non self-published. JGehlbach (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

his only book is eelf-published. I should have worded it , "and that the person has written only one book, which is self published, tends to indicate a lack of notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I imagine everybody here would agree that any author with an elf-published book would be automatically notable ;)

Keep. Some of the points aren't earthshattering, eg a skeptic being inspired by skeptics, but overall I feel that founding PIRA, co-founding USPA, setting up ARS and other bits meet criteria for: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" as described above by more than one person. Joolzzt (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the points made above. I do believe the article meets the criteria of notability. He certainly is "interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention." The numerous citations support this--particularly the Popular Mechanics and People Magazine articles. He is a skeptic commentator of note. Dustinlull (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not to further "bludgeon" this... But I was not sure I could vote as the author's originator, but now THINK that I can , so I will cast mine officially now for a (duh) Keep. Let me reiterate my main point as to why I decided Biddle was notable enough that I spent a good portion of my week off writing an article on him. And I think NONE of the Delete advocates have addressed this point (which I previously made): Wiki notability includes people that are "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". (See above for quote in context.) When I learned of Biddle's transformation from one of the innumerable paranormal advocates (a ghost hunter who formed paranormal groups!) to someone now firmly and vocally on the other side of the fence, I was intrigued. I had never heard of anyone in that position. (I think that qualifies as "unusual"!) Then I found out he is one of the rising starts of the scientific skepticism movement. He not only just had a coveted speaking spot at last year's CSICon (his first as such a prestigious event), but discovered he has been mentioned in a variety of recent books by already notable and respected skeptics including Sharon A. Hill and Ben Radford, and more are on the way. (I had added text to this affect - now deleted for some reason - about a Ben Radford proclamation on his podcast that Biddle is discussed in another, upcoming, book he wrote). The reference I found like People and Popular Mechanics and Skeptical Inquirer to me seemed a sufficient start. And there were plenty of others refs as well (yes - of lesser note - but once notability was shown, I though that was OK). So all that - for me - sealed the deal, and I put in the time to create this article for Wikipedia. I am sorry some of you think I wasted my time. And if it gets deleted I certainly did. RobP (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 9 photos credited to Biddle in the Book "Scientifical Americans". Also cited in People.com/celebrity online article "stanley-hotel-ghost-photographed-at-hotel-that-inspired-the-shining".

ScienceExplains (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is not much to add as I think as all keep voters do, there are a good amount of citations which are not by any means small mentions or done by the subject themselves. The objections seem to be done towards a certain citation without taking in count the rest of them. An example is saying that the books are self published, when only one of the cited is self published. Objectors are focusing on one or two things when there is a wealth of citations to take in count. Walkiria Nubes (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All "keep" opinions are by editors with few editors. Could experienced contributors weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that all Keep votes are by editors with few edits. (Assuming the relist comment had a typo, and this is what was actually meant.) I have over 4,000 myself. Also, did you check on the edit history of those making Delete votes to compare? And, perhaps most importantly, what is the magic number considered "few"... and where in WP policy is the number of edits in the history of voting editors stated as a valid reason for a relist, instead of just considering the soundness of the arguments presented by any editor no matter what their vote, and making a determination based upon those arguments? RobP (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure you are getting your point across. Can you say 5000 more words on this?198.58.168.40 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's really not a bad line-up of sources. A big proportion of web-based material should not be taken as an indicator of lack of notability when a) some of it is quite high-profile, and b) it is combined with a fair number of more "standard" sources, as here. WP:GNG seems satisfied. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I waited to see if new sources would be added to this discussion. The notability is not strong, but I see no cause for removal. Kyle^(talk) 03:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of trashy, unreliable sources are used to pad out this article --- Ghostvillage.com, Spooktator.co.uk, adventuresinpoortaste.com, barrytaff.net, hayleyisaghost.co.uk, anomaliesresearchsociety.wordpress.com --- not to mention Facebook posts, Youtube videos and non-notable podcasts. Get rid of all these (and the material cited to them) and we'd have a better indication of this individual's notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see WTSP, The Atlantic, Scientifical Americans, The Southside Time, and one local humanist society and less-local societies in New York and Philadelphia. We usually don't like interviews for article sourcing, but being considered worth talking to by Skeptical Inquirer is persuasive to me in this context. Not bad enough for an automatic delete. Independent sources are there but I have not assessed quality or depth. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biddle is mentioned on 5 seperate occasions in Ben Radfords's latest book 'INVESTIGATING GHOSTS: The Scientific Search for Spirits' ISBN 978-0-9364-5516-7. His expert analysis on ghost detectors and ghost photography analysis is relied upon to support certain arguments. I consider this to support the argument that Biddle is notable. I have not updated Biddle's page, however it is my intention, unless someone beats me to it. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated 8==8 Boneso (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article relies mostly on questionable sources, so I don't see a GNG case here. I place no trust in Rhombus Publishing, as it seems they publish a bunch of books on oddball pseudoscience. I don't see a track record for them nor do I see reviews about Radford's book. The Scientifical Americans book only gives the subject credit for photos they used; he's not mentioned in the book. The discussion about the subject relies upon ghost hunter websites and the like. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It would be nice if anyone voting to Delete actually take the time to read the article. It might avoid making votes based on factual errors like the one in this comment. Saying Biddle is not mentioned in the book Scientifical Americans is plain wrong, as is evident by this paragraph from the article: "Biddle's impact on some members of the paranormal research community was described by Sharon Hill in her 2017 book, Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers, for which Biddle provided the photography. In the book, Hill says: "Jason and Bobby [Jason Korbus and Bobby Nelson] consider Randi to have been a critical influence on their change in thinking as well as Michael Shermer, Ben Radford, and Kenny Biddle (another ghost-hunter-turned skeptical-advocate)...[2]" Also, even if you are right about Rhombus Publishing, they publish on both sides of the fence, as the Radford's books you are diminishing are all scientific in nature. And Radford's latest book came out just the other day, hence no reviews yet. Looks like folks are really stretching for reasons to delete this. RobP (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Rp2006: You need not disparage me. I did read the article. You'll note that edited it a bit, too. I have no dog in this fight; I just don't see the subject passing GNG. That's my opinion. You're free to disagree but you need not accuse me of being ignorant or biased. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Chris troutman: I did not mean to disparage you, nor did I call you ignorant. You were simply not the first to vote Delete and then to sight as a reason, not a matter of opinion, but a factually incorrect observation about the article ("The Scientifical Americans book only gives the subject credit for photos they used; he's not mentioned in the book.") So I am perplexed that you took the trouble to reply to me about feeling insulted, but you are not going to comment on the detail you got wrong? Will you really not admit that what you claimed about Biddle only being mentioned as contributing photos is just incorrect (as is clear from the article's text as I quoted above)? I had assumed it was an oversight and you either didn't read the article, or simply glossed over the pertinent part, but if you will not admit that error now, then I don't see how I can continue to assume good faith. So why do I care? I simply do not think it is fair if others read through these votes and then decide to vote Delete based upon categorically false information provided by others. A matter of opinion is one thing. But this is NOT a matter of opinion. RobP (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Rp2006: I acknowledge on page 204 that the book says what you claim. It's a single sentence in the concluding chapter of her book and, frankly, doesn't mean much when the author obtained permission from Biddle to use a bunch of his photos. In that light, she's not independent of the subject. She doesn't objectively discuss him, anyway, beyond the mention you've pointed to. As I said, it's not enough for GNG to my mind. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has become increasingly difficult for editors to improve the page with disruptive edits (reverts) made by Elektricity. See comments here on Elektricity's talk page and here. on Kenny Biddle's talk page. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, WP:RSes. Concur with User:Chris troutman's comments above. While it is nice to see a lot of editors who have not participated at AfD often weighing in here, many of the keep iVoters above seem unfamiliar with the sort of sources that support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:29, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Wagner[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Not enough sources to support a BLP. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an exemple of how badly maintained Wikipedia is. That a sub-standard biography like this has lasted for 9 years is a disgrace. It lacks any reliable sources, which is bad enough. Sadly, there are some editors who will defend any article on an actress no matter how sub-standard the sourcing. This is doubly bad because calling her an actress is stretching the term, she is more a bodydouble and stuntwoman. This is no where near passing the notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources brings back trivial passing mentions of other people with the same name, but not obviously this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 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) 15:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Chun[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CIO of a university is not in any way a sign of notability. His academic roles are just not enough to pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable academic administrator (not head of whole university; only sources are spammy awards) and also not notable as a computer science researcher. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 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. Sandstein 21:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Afghanistan CV-22 Crash[edit]

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

Military accidents are generally non-notable regardless of how many are killed. Notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties, extensive infrastructure damage, changes to legislation or operational doctrine, etc. etc., or anything that could be construed as notable in it's own right, such as notable passengers WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and as a guide: WP:AIRCRASH (If there are any verifiable consequences this article might well qualify for resurrection, but as it stands it does not) Petebutt (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Ftxs (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete military aircraft accidents are fairly common and a rarely noteworthy for a stand-alone article per OP, entry in Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for a separate article; unfortunately, a fairly common occurrence for all types of aircraft. Agree with MilborneOne as to where it should be mentioned. Kierzek (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AIRCRASH. Not independtly notable. Is notable as part of V-22 woes list, where this is already described at length.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worthy in mention in the V-22's article as part of the long and troubled development of the type, but as a standalone, as the saying goes "s[tuff] happens". Military aircraft sometimes crash, and when they crash, they usually kill people. It's rare for one to show WP:PERSISTENCE and there's no especial long-term effect of this one outside of "...and that's why the Osprey is a deathtrap" clickbaiting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worthy of mention in the Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey article. While military crashes are still relatively common, they are much less so in the 21st century, and most do not rack up crashes like the V-22. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but not notable military accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't just another aircraft accident. It's the first combat loss of a V-22. It received significant news coverage. And the investigation and its findings were the subject of much discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftxs (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first loss of an aircraft type isn't inherently notable. Of course there was a burst of news coverage; it was an Osprey, and ambulance chasing sells. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey article can cover this incident. While we should definitely give the loss of V-22s extra attention given the amount of coverage and debate which always results, this doesn't need to be through stand-alone articles. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is so true, at least we can keep these subjects somewhere. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:27, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Callanecc, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria CSD A7, CSD G11. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ather Farouqui[edit]

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

This appears to be a biography of someone that does not meet notability criteria. The first six "references" are all just links to news/opinion articles the individual has written. Other references don't establish notability and/or aren't independent. Claims of notability in the article (e.g. "General Secretary of Anjuman Taraqui Urdu (Hind)" do not rise to a sufficient level to establish meeting WP:BIO or appear contradictory (for example, "He received the Sahitya Akademi Award in 2012" appears to contradict List of Sahitya Akademi Award winners for Urdu. In addition, the article is the work of a single purpose account with an apparent COI and the article is full of hyperbole, puffery, and other blatantly promotional content. The content is identical to a submission that was declined at AFC (here) for lack of notability. The creator of the draft then just bypassed AFC and created the biography in article space instead. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional article on a non notable person. Fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. I have also tagged the article for Speedy as it was created in contravention to Wikipedia policies for articles denied at AfC. Hagennos (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing close to the impact in scholarly circles to show notability as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 14 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 keep. Certainly per WP:SKCRIT #3, hopefully, of course, not #4 also. But perhaps Bbb23, BU Rob13 (for example) could give a second opinion upon that likelihood. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doodhnath Singh[edit]

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

The Writer is not notable fails GNG and all references are about his death.Not a notable Hindi writer and has won no notable awardsOderwald (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added for AfD by single purpose account. First ever edit. Suspicious. Anyway clearly notable and within WP:GNG. Article is in good shape overall with good references. The fact that most references stems from after his death is really irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Gene93k. Third party references provided satisfies WP:GNG. Hagennos (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am going to be generous and assume that this nomination is an error on the part of the nominator rather than an act of bad faith, but sources clearly demonstrate that this person meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: The nominator says that all of the sources talk about the writer's death. Here are a few sources that provide significant coverage of the subject during his lifetime.

"साहित्यकार दूधनाथ सिंह को मिला 'भारत भारती', 'हिंदी गौरव' बने सुरेश गौतम". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). 7 December 2014. Retrieved 14 January 2018.
Chander, Romesh (18 February 2005). "Drama and Mythology". The Hindu. Retrieved 14 January 2018.
"शब्दों की माला में समय को पिरोते 80 के हुए दूधनाथ". Hindustan (in Hindi). 17 October 2016. Retrieved 13 January 2018.

The first of these article was published when the subject's name was chosen for the Bharat Bharti Samman. Would a non-notable writer be chosen for this award? Meets WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:06, 14 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. Sandstein 21:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archie D'Souza[edit]

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

Fluency in Arabic, French and Italian, and Spanish is not what makes you notable. Nothing in WP:RS. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, this looks exactly like an A7. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just being a Catholic priest is not enough to demonstrate notability and nothing else even comes close to suggesting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Professor at a college which only has a redlink hardly implies notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 14 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. Sandstein 21:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Peacott[edit]

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

Dearth of substantial and in-depth, dedicated reliable sources. Only primary/affiliated refs and brief mentions. No worthwhile redirect targets. czar 16:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 16:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 16:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. czar 16:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 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. Sandstein 21:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Kent[edit]

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

does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL CASSIOPEIA (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding sources to indicate that he meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the sources on Kent nor the leagues he played in are enough to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are any sources indicating that he passes GNG I would guess they're in Spanish and/or Japanese. Didn't have much luck though finding any, the best I found was this and this. Doesn't quite cut it. Dammit_steve (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admittedly my Spanish and even more so Japanese search skills are weak, so I would love to hear from an editor with expertise there. But, my searches in English, and site specific searches of some Buenos Aires newspapers, including Ole turned up nothing helpful. Based on his career, it seems unlikely there would be significant sources from Japan, so I'm willing to infer they don't exist until someone with Japanese language skills chips in.Jacona (talk) 14:30, 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 redirect. Changing my vote to redirect. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshang NE Dinshaw[edit]

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

Going in detail of everything from their ventures to philanthropy of their family, he is at least not notable as other two are. No significant coverage to pass WP:ANYBIO. Started by User talk:Waddington3. Störm (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 14:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seth Edulji Dinshaw#Family like we did here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Framroze_Edulji_Dinshaw, for the same reason: this person is not especially notable except for being in the same family. Here's an article talking about the family; this person is never mentioned. Also: the same editor created both these articles in 2011, and creating these two articles was their only contribution to Wikipedia, so..... — Warren. ‘ talk , 16:39, 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. Sandstein 21:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firoza Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is not meeting notibility guideline of wikipedia, it has no reference, the article should be deleted as soon as possible.ABCDE22 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 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. Sandstein 21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoshean[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable term: a search reveals less than two pages worth of hits, none of which are to reliable sources. The term itself does not appear to have been covered in sources, and the article itself reads promotionally and also feels like a coatrack of another topic. I'm not sure that a redirect to Yeshua is possible considering the obscurity of the term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor POVFORK of Messianic Judaism (to be accurate, this is a poor and non neutral description of a sub branch).Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in the article and nothing found in a Google search that would support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This looks like a minor splinter group of Messianic Jews. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 14 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. Consensus is there that this subject meets the relevant standard. ESPNCricinfo is sufficient as a source. bd2412 T 03:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsuoko Suda[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:SPORTBASIC M A A Z T A L K 13:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This cricketer has played in the 2013 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier which is an international women's cricket tournament. So that's why I created this article. If you wish to delete this article I accept it. Thanks in advance. Abishe (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Definitely passes WP:NCRIC. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NCRIC should be understood in relation to or after basic guidelines are met. Its like reading one or two points from for example WP:POLITICIAN to add a politician on Wikipedia, while neglecting first WP:GNG. M A A Z T A L K 14:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The sourcing entirely fails the general notability guidelines. It is time to scrap the notability guidelines on cricket that are way too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:N, "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Harrias ^talk 10:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Subject-specific guideline in WP:ATHLETE, emphasizes foremost upon WP:SPORTBASIC. WP:NCRIC should be considered after basic criteria is met. M A A Z T A L K 11:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:NCRIC. If you feel those notability guidelines are too broad, discuss it in the appropriate place, which isn't here. Smartyllama (talk) 17:39, 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindell Wigginton[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL CASSIOPEIA (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG per articles like this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2. Passes GNG.--TM 21:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, plus competed for Canada in international play. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles only add up to routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No they are not, they are full stories centered around the subject. And if you don’t like those ones, try this and this and this. Johnpacklambert, you are quickly losing credibility in AfD discussions. Fully 98.4% of your votes are Delete/Merge/Redirect (see here) and many show a lack of WP:BEFORE - not fully checking to see if the subject meets a notability guideline, not looking for sources, etc. If you are going to !vote indiscriminately why should we pay attention? Rikster2 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. I share other users' concerns about Johnpacklambert. He's already been sanctioned for creating spurious AFDs without doing WP:BEFORE, perhaps it's time to increase those sanctions. Smartyllama (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the cabal of keepers for articles on sportspeople gets outraged, does not mean that nominating one line articles is in any way a "spurious" nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I vote Delete more than I vote keep, smart guy. Rikster2 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG is satisfied with the sources listed above. To the Nominator, WP:GNG should be considered before looking at specific notability guidelines such as WP:NBASKETBALL. These sport-specific-guidelines are inclusionary, not exclusionary. Their existence allows us to avoid wasting time here at AfD debating whether someone is notable per WP:GNG because they are presumed to be obviously notable if, say, they participated in one NBA game. Nominating articles that obviously meet WP:GNG here without performing WP:BEFORE causes a number of editors to go through unnecessary work. In this AfD alone you can see the work performed byBaby,Rikster2,John Pack Lambert,EDDY ,Rikster2,Smartyllama,Ejgreen77,Rlendog, and myself. All of us have probably gone through the BEFORE exercise, or at least some portion that you did. These sports specific guidelines are here to save us that time so we can be making productive improvements to the encyclopedia elsewhere. If an editor makes continual frivolous nominations, they begin to disrupt the entire process; some editors have been subjected to sanctions for doing so. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia, and if you sincerely believe that a subject meets the valid reasons for deletion laid out in the deletion policy, please continue to bring them here! But take care to consider our limited resources by first conducting a sincere WP:BEFORE. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JaconaFrere:I had done the WP:BEFORE before nominated. If it is based on WP:GNG the article pass. I AfD based on WP:BASKETBALL. I know there are discussions on this inclusion/exclusion nobility topics and its disagreements. Since as you mentioned sport-specific-guidelines are exclusionary, not exclusionary then it should be kept. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a closing admin: As the nominator asks to keep the article, please close this one quickly. Thanks! Thanks, CASSIOPEIA for your prompt attention! It is greatly appreciated. Jacona (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JaconaFrere: Greetings and welcome, and sorry for the trouble. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't close it early on nominator's request because Johnpacklambert has !voted delete. However, it's going to be closed tomorrow anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 19:37, 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 delete. No consensus, but WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows deletion in such cases. This is clearly a borderline case in terms of notability and sourcing, so we don't lose much by honoring the subject's wishes. Sandstein 21:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaise Larmee[edit]

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

Article subject has requested deletion (OTRS agents, see VRTS ticket # 2018011110011208), arguing that he does not meet the notability criteria, with most of the available sources featuring only trivial mentions or being interviews. Having looked for sources myself, I agree. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agree with nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Interviews do contribute to establishing notability on Wikipedia, so the reason given in the lead isn't entirely accurate. Articles like this [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] are reliable and discuss Larmee in the kind of depth that we expect from a notable topic. Heidi MacDonald described Larmee as "a cartoonist of some repute", and The Comics Journal said that Larmee is one of "The new comics “personalities” [seeking] out attention in a way previous generations of cartoonists did not, which has led, in some cases, to the persona overshadowing the work." These are all indications of a notable person, and I haven't even looked for sources not in use yet. Now, it's true that Young Lions can cover a lot of this topic, but Larmee has done more than just that and reliable sources have covered his other work to various degrees (like this [37]). I apologise to Larmee for voting against his will in order to keep to the spirit of Wikipedia. ~Mable (chat) 21:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not contribute to notability, we lack enough reliable sources covering Larmee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as a recipient of the annual Xeric grant and coverage by reliable sources like this from Comics Beat, this and this from ComicsAlliance, this from The Comics Journal, and this from Hyperallergic. Definitely meets criteria 3 and 4c of WP:AUTHOR. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've attempted to improve this article in the past but I agree it ultimately fails the basic criteria (WP:BASIC). Sources provide little to no depth on the subject. The sources listed above include a broken link and an article with less than half a sentence on the subject (here and here). Tom-of-finland (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both those sources work fine for me - which one looks broken to you? Either way, broken links are no problem for notability. ~Mable (chat) 19:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is the link I was referring to. While dead links do not usually indicate a problem with the source, in this case the linked online article was taken offline 2 days after it was published, suggesting it was unfit for publication to begin with. It seems like a good example of a bad source. Tom-of-finland (talk) 07:34, 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 redirect to Stephen Baxter bibliography#Unrelated novels. Sandstein 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Ice[edit]

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

No references and seems a very minor book. Reaganomics88 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a plausible redirect to Stephen Baxter bibliography, maybe the redlinked works there can also be redirected. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin do this please? E.g. User:Acroterion. Reaganomics88 (talk) 08:40, 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 speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zərnəli[edit]

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

Are this kind of articles even allowed in English Wikipedia? Harut111 (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 13:25, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this village can be verified, yes, English Wikipedia keeps them per WP:GEOLAND even if the article is a substub. The article's only reference is a broken link and a Google search yields non-English results. There is work to do. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a real village, I have checked the az wiki and this which says it is listed in The National Encyclopedia of Azerbaijan.25, Volume "Azerbaijan", Baku, 2007, p.875, I think this means it should be kept according to your policy which is called WP:GEOLAND. Also you can see it on google maps. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:21, 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. Sandstein 20:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of American firefighters killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

Only one source, poorly defined list with small amounts of content. RF23 (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete- to broad of a category for a list. A complete list would include thousands of entries. The current entries don't meet notability guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE also most of the names do not pass WP:BLP and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Ajf773 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [was "Keep", obviously.] It can/should be developed, but that is not for AFD. Per wp:CLT it is appropriate to have a list corresponding to a category, and here the relevant categories could be Category:American firefighters and Category:Deaths from fire in the United States. The list version allows for redlinks and using sources to suggest where individual firefighter articles are needed and the corresponding categories to be developed. There's nothing wrong with a category or list being potentially huge, we just proceed and split along geography or other lines. I happen to do a lot of editing related to List of RHPs, a list of 90,000 historic sites, no problemo. There are List of artists, List of scientists, and on and on. List-item notability can be an issue, but is not for AFD, and one simple solution can be to limit items to ones having separate Wikipedia articles. As a topic, firemen killed in the line of duty is a hugely well recognized topic, for centuries, c.f. memorials to fallen fire fighters in most U.S. cities. --Doncram (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentiment seems against my view. Fallen fire fighters are an obvious-to-me important topic, so I don't like this. But there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cal Fire firefighters killed in the line of duty which led to the removal from Wikipedia of an explicit list of California firefighters, although the deletion-nominated article was converted to California Firefighters Memorial, which survives. It seems that others' taste is not to have a list of persons who are not themselves obviously individually notable (i.e. they don't have separate Wikipedia articles).

Perhaps, development-wise, it would be better to develop first a List of firefighting memorials (currently a redlink), corresponding to Category:Firefighting memorials. This would surely be accepted as there are numerous Wikipedia-notable examples (which have articles). Also, towards developing a list of individual fallen firefighters, it would help to create an explicit category for them, and to include examples such as James J. Kenney. Then later it would be feasible to create a list-article which would survive deletion pressure.

For the record, the current article states "This is a list of American firefighters killed in the line of duty. The list includes individuals whose deaths received either significant local, national, or international attention" and its significant content is the following table, which lists just nine persons, none having articles yet. There is no indication these are more significant than any others.

First Name	Last Name	Incident Date	Cause Of Death	Nature Of Death	Location
Robert	Pollard	December 31, 1999	Stress/Overexertion	Cerebrovascular Accident	New York City
Lee	Purdy	January 8, 2000	Stress/Overexertion	Heart Attack	New York City
Ronald	Osadacz	January 11, 2000	Stress/Overexertion	Heart Attack	New York City
Allen	Streeter	January 11, 2000	Stress/Overexertion	Heart Attack	New York City^[1]
John	Bellew	January 23, 2005	Fall	Blunt Force Trauma (Black Sunday (2005))	The Bronx, NY
Curtis	Meyran	January 23, 2005	Fall	Blunt Force Trauma (Black Sunday (2005))	The Bronx, NY
Richard	Scalfani	January 23, 2005	House Fire	Asphyxiation (Black Sunday (2005))	Brooklyn, NY
Larry	Leggio	October 12, 2015	Building Collapse	Blunt Force Trauma	Kansas City, MO
John	Mesh	October 12, 2015	Building Collapse	Blunt Force Trauma	Kansas City, MO

To reiterate, fallen firefighters are obviously (to me) significant, and having a list-article of at least the more prominent/notable ones (at least all the ones having separate Wikipedia articles about them) is obviously acceptable in the long term in Wikipedia. Arguments that it will be "too many" are just misguided, IMHO. But there does need to be some prioritization, some clarity in presentation about why the ones presented in a given list are chosen. The current version could/should be modified to do that, IMHO, but that is not yet happening. I hope my suggestions on a way forward are helpful for future editors. --Doncram (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTINDISCRIMINATE. National Fire Protection Association stats show about 125 firefighters per year lately, more in earlier years, so we're talking about a couple of thousand entries just for this millenium. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:07, 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 merge to Oregon State University. Sandstein 20:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Media Network[edit]

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

Well-written but promotional article, not really meeting WP:NORG, citing only internal sources. COI of major contributor has been correctly declare on the article talk page - project done as part of course work. Students should be pleased they've done a good job in constructing it (if you overlook all the bare urls in the refs). But does subject merit a page here on this encyclopaedia? I really don't feel it does. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Oregon State University is the best outcome. I looked in the Oregon State article and found no mention of the media network, yet it is notable enough for a section. I hope this project was given an F because any student should know they need better sources and appropriately constructed references, but that issue can be resolved by a selective merge to avoid WP:UNDUE and to remove anything that fails WP:V. Per WP:CC BY-SA, we cannot delete an article that is used in a merge; this article would remain as a redirect to Oregon State University. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oregon State University. At this time there aren't enough reliable sources to show that it is notable. But it could be an example of WP:TOOSOON and just need additional sources. I think an abbreviated version would be appropriate as a section under the UNI article. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selected Merge to Oregon State University They run the radio station KBVR which already has its own article and the newspaper The Daily Barometer. The television station is less notable though since it doesn't broadcast over the air, seems to basically be a cable public access channel, but still could be mentioned. I don't think the blogs/podcasts are notable though.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 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 Wrong forum. Merger nominations are made on the article talk page. Sandstein 20:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit bucket[edit]

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

Propose merge with null device ï¿½ (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per OP. It's a bit thin on its own (those soundbite quotes aren't helping). Should make sure the original confetti bucket meaning + image gets ported over. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 14 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rock[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, doesn't seem to be notable. RF23 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree. Subject does not appear to meet minimum requirements of notability based on referenced books and articles online. Djrun (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 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 merge to Alice Cooper (band). And elsewhere as appropriate. Sandstein 20:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiders (American rock band)[edit]

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

Not notable on their own right, info should be merged into Alice Cooper and Alice Cooper group articles. RF23 (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: This act is clearly notable because their roster included Vincent Furnier (later Alice Cooper) and members of the later group Alice Cooper. The group was the most popular band in Pheonix circa 1966-they had a #1 hit thee ("Don't Blow Your Mind), and their work has been featured on several garage rock compilations such as Back from the Grave, which is one of the better known comps. So, the information in this article is notable to stand. It would still be my preference to have the article stand on its own, due to the group's visibility with garage rock followers. However, some may feel that the band's closeness to the later Alice Cooper group would make this article a good candidate for a merge. I once felt differently, but at this time I would not necessarily object to merging it with Alice Cooper (band), in light of the shared membership in both acts. So, keep or merge. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, unfortunately, since some information will need to be cut out but here is why this is the best option: regional hits, compilations, etc. all make for a good story but those have little to do with our guidelines on music. I can find little in terms of secondary coverage extensively covering the Spiders; I also believe, with the article on the Alice Cooper band in desperate need of an upgrade, a merge will jumpstart that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be just fine: I agree with TheGracefulSlick that if we merge this article into the Alice Cooper (band), then we should remove information about compilations—it would no longer be necessary in that context. However, we should still retain info. about the Spiders' regional hit and popularity in Phoenix. Recently, I watched the DVD bio about Alice Cooper (the singer) and it mentions the band's hit and popularity in Phoenix, so that could be considered be necessary biographical info. to transport to the larger article. I'm also more aware of the intrinsic connection between the Spiders and the later act than I was a few years ago. I think this was one of the first articles I wrote, so the way I view things has evolved. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:45, 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 redirect to Wreck-It Ralph. When you've filtered out the COI and socks, there's a reasonable consensus for a redirect here. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fix-It Felix Jr[edit]

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

Lack of reliable 3rd party coverage - there's YouTube stuff and fan blogs, and that's it. Notable as an item within Wreck-It Ralph, but not on its own. As there has been some edit warring, some clear decision seems desirable here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added by the OP before taking a holiday: [38] - a bit of coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If kept, Fix-It Felix Jr. (ie. with a dot on the end) should be changed to point to it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been moved to a user page; meanwhile the actual title in article space (with a period in front of Jr.; this has no period) has been redirected since 2013 with nothing further, and this item up for deletion was actually for an item in WP: space as Wikipedia:Fix-It Felix Jr. before the main creator moved it to the non-existent user's main page. Should this actually be up in WP:MFD instead? Nate • (chatter) 10:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The user who created the article and opposed turning it in to a redirect moved it themselves when this AfD was created. Should the series of moves be reverted to allow the AfD to run, or should the article be speedy userfied/draftified and a redirect re-created? Iffy★Chat -- 11:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gawd. Someone who understands what actually happened there with the moves please take over - I just tried to revert one and only increased the mess, I fear. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is why WP:G6 exists, I'll see if I can fix the problem, and then add some tags so an admin can clean up the mess. Iffy★Chat -- 11:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tags added - when an admin deletes the pages, the User page can be moved and everything should be sorted. Iffy★Chat -- 11:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - All sorted. Thanks User:RHaworth. Iffy★Chat -- 12:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yup, cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Fiction inspiring reality is an interesting idea. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a spin-off video game from a film. If it meets GNG (and I think this does, just about), we've generally kept such things. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Roll on the 3rd party coverage guys, then I'm all for Keep :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that we have the nom figured out (thank you everyone!), I agree this meets GNG as a unique playable artifact of the actual film. Only thing I'd do is add the period on the end and move it there. Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wreck-It Ralph (and move to the proper period on the end (or maybe don't, I didn't realize that article already existed - 00:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)) I had initially been the one to just boldly revert to the redirect version, but when I saw this AfD and the keep votes on it, I decided to ruminate further on whether I think it needs a standalone article. After thinking... I still think it doesn't need to be its own standalone article. I don't think, from the sources I've looked at, that it's notable on its own, and even if it is, I'm not sure there's enough content that could be included in such an article to make a standalone article's existence make sense (as opposed to the same information being woven into the Wreck-It Ralph article, for instance). - Purplewowies (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I couldn't find any significant coverage from reliable sources outside of the already mentioned Venture Beat article. Probably best presented in its parent article anyways, in some sort of "Promotion" or "Impact/Legacy" type subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve it's like no one even looked for references. Kotaku has an article on it, as does Business Insider, as does Rock, Paper Shotgun. Weirdly, you can even play the game on ESPN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wouldn't say the Rock Paper Shotgun source counts as "significant" coverage; it's basically a short blog post and mentions the Unity game (mistakenly identified in WP's article as "Flash") as a sort of one-sentence afterthought. And the ESPN link is dead from looking at that source (the "account has been disabled"); I do think the game is still properly playable on its Disney page, anyhow. (I've looked into the (other) sources and I'm still not sure there are enough to firmly establish notability.) There's also the question of whether the cabinets with a playable game in them (as opposed to the just-plays-a-video cabinet at E3 that the article includes an image of and decides to call a "prototype") and the online game are or should be presented as the same topic (are they both notable? is either?). (I also believe it's important to determine whether any article that could be pulled out of this would be a WP:PERMASTUB and whether it's worth it to have it be separate if that's the case.) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Your "Business Insider" source isn't from them, but rather, a reprint of a write up from a website called Modojo, a website I've never heard of, and isn't listed/evaluated at WP:VG/S. That doesn't automatically mean its unreliable, but it's also not quite the "slam dunk" you're making it out to be either. The Rock Paper Shotgun source does not constitute "significant coverage" and would not count towards notability. The entire article is one short paragraph, and only the last 2 short sentences address the game itself - that's textbook "passing mention". The game itself being hosted and playable on ESPN, while bizarre, has no bearing on its reliability either. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Random note that I don't personally find the ESPN hosting that bizarre; Disney does own them after all. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fix-It Felix Jr. already redirects to Wreck-It Ralph so this malformed title should just be deleted. For the sake of consensus however, I will also say redirect is a viable option. It merits a section in Wreck-it Ralph but doesnt seem notable enough for a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely - I defend this article, because I have proof of it, and in the words of Jules Verne: "Everything that man imagines becomes a reality" and video games aren't the exception. Fix-It Felix Jr. must be in the Post-fictional category, Because it has been seen hundreds of times by many people who hadn't imagined that this game really existed. Deletion means giving inferiority to the game, this one deserves to have an article separate because of it's influence. The article to be maintained to give you more improvements and more truthful and notorious information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofihombre (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will show evidence to continue keeping the article - Well, I think I won't continue deleting negative comments and I will continue to strengthen the positive ones to continue keeping the article. One of the best ways to know better the presence of this game, is through video captures, as in this example: Fix it Felix Jr. Arcade Machine (FULL SIZE) Look! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofihombre (talk • contribs) 19:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Proof that something exists isn't proof that it's notable enough ("worthy of note", as judged by reliable sources) to have a whole article devoted to it. (And for that matter, a redirect or delete !vote isn't inherently negative; we are all trying to suggest what we think is best for the encyclopedia, after all.) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not as if that hadn't been explained to them already, but apparently it didn't stick... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Not enough notability. --Tarage (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So there must be. A video should be enough to know about this game. Let's see if it looks like 3?
  Example 1: Fix it Felix Jr Arcade Version
  Example 2: Fix It Felix arcade Review
  Example 3: fix it felix jr arcade attraction screen
  It's for you to know that I want the article to be maintained, since it deserves a special position, and look for more clues. Your concept of "Notability" is exclusively closed in the press of 3rd parties. When the wikipedia of the other languages is a bit more open than the strict English version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofihombre (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't really care what other language Wikis do. Learn the rules or get out. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Ok, ignore this last paragraph, but I repeat that your concept of "Notability" of Wikipedia, is exclusively closed to third-party press, undervalue the information of independent people who even know much better than those. You delete articles just for not having references of the press, and you do not leave it reserved so that they improve and look for those references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofihombre (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't like our rules? you can leave at any time. --Tarage (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Please remember WP:BITE and don't straight up tell people to leave. It's not as if any amount of argument can change a deletion discussion unless the argument is sound. If they keep being disruptive outside of a deletion discussion then they will be blocked._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not the place to complain about the rules. This is where the rules are enforced. If you want to change the rules, go for it. But that place wouldn't be here, and until the rules are changed, your argument is currently invalid. What you're doing is the equivalent of getting pulled over for speeding by the police, and you arguing with him that you don't agree with the speed limit. He wouldn't care, because he doesn't set the speed limits, he just enforces them. Obviously, we're not all "the police" in this situation, but its the same idea of complaining too late and at the wrong venue. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors! Stop adding and removing the bold Comment from people's comments. (See page history for what I'm talking about.) There is literally no reason for or against adding or removing. Stop wasting time, all of you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue some of them did have readability/WP:ACCESS implications, which is a highly valid reason, but... yeah. (Actually, on that note, I might change the indent formatting to match the best practices in the list section of WP:ACCESS, if that's okay, since the change from bullets to indents might be disruptive for screen readers.) - Purplewowies (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that'd be news to me, as people add a comment mark at the beginning of their comments at AFD all the time, and I've never witnessed anyone be scolded for it before, and rarely seen anyone go about unilaterally removing it from others comments. Regardless, the article creator has now been blocked for blatant vandalism here and elsewhere, so at least the back and forth should be over with now... Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, removal is odd, but it appears the situation may have gone like this: People using comment normally, Ofihombre adding it to comments that weren't his own, someone getting irritated he added it to theirs and removing it from theirs and others (including ones he didn't add to), me adding mine back (and then me adding one of yours back for readability of a block of text (that's the accessibility/readability implication, BTW)), and Ofihombre adding his back. A confusing and labyrinthine series of events that that had minor or even zero-sum effects on the discussion. (At the time of this comment, I've decided to go through and standardize the list progression used by this AFD in the spirit of WP:ACCESS since I happened to have time and no one seems to have objected.) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wreck-It Ralph Notable enough to be included in article about movie, but GNG not enough for seperate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryredplanet (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I get it now. I get the reason why this editor is so brazenly supporting this non-notible article. Folks, we have a conflict of interest issue here. There is a Fix-It-Felix game created by one OfiHombre here: https://ofihombre.itch.io/fix-it-felix-jr . Now not only is this article not notible, it has a conflict of interest issue as well. Nuke it from space, salt, and move on. --Tarage (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted at the talk page, I think that is an over-reaction. The cabinet version, which is what the article mainly deals with, was not made by one dude on an 8-bit engine. The editor has likely made one of the fan remakes, but those only get a passing mention in the article. This is a fan article, not a promo exercise. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagine the truth may be somewhere in the middle of both of your stances. But regardless, it probably doesn't matter, as the article is looking highly unlikely to be kept at this rate anyways, considering there's only a few keep votes and most of them don't cite any sort of policy in their stance. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Either redirect into Wreck-it Ralph and include a section on it there or keep this stand-alone article, but don't delete Lacypaperclip2.0 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wreck-it Ralph No independent notability. Sources offered above are not significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wreck-it Ralph. The flash game was a promotional device for the Wreck-it Ralph movie and both it and the fictional game itself are not independently notable from the movie. Normally I would suggest merging some of the article content into the parent article, but in this case it mostly seems to be trivia. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anyway - I don't agree with all of you, even being promotion of the movie, the game so far has had a story behind after the success of it, Homebrew versions of Sega Genesis and Atari 2600 have been made, hundreds of users have dedicated themselves to talking about the game. But as they haven't been notorious and little registered by the press and official sources, it is clearly the reason for their redirect, although I would also have preferred the article to be a Merge. Anyway I get to keep the article. 8:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.114.170 (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latin house[edit]

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

No sourcing found, no notability asserted Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator was pointed towards Google Books when this was deproded, where sources such as these can be found: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. See also [46]. May be appropriately merged to House music, but I suspect that given a little effort there will prove to be enough for a separate article. --Michig (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: You seem lost. Sources go in the article, not in the AFD. Try again. And most of those don't load for me anyway, or onlymention it trivially. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of sources discuss the genre. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: you mean the sources @Michig: found that either don't mention it, mention it in passing, or don't even load at all? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those. These. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Stavans, "House", in Ilan Stavans's Latin Music: Musicians, Genres, and Themes, pp. 337–38. Greenwood/ABC-CLIO 2014 ISBN 9780313343964 "While Nervous Records was exposing the world to Latin house, other labels and artists were also doing the same. Ralphie's track “Da-Me-Lo” became a huge hit in the United States and his remix of Albita's “No Parece a Nada” also saw major attention from house DJs across the United States. During the mid 1990s, Latin house was also heavily explored by the Cutting Label who signed DJ and producer Norty Cotto."
John Storm Roberts (1999). The Latin Tinge: The Impact of Latin American Music on the United States, page 239. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195121018 "Despite the wild and woolly frontiersmanship around the edges of the idiom, later work shows that Latin house is not simply a free-for-all. The young groups recording on the small Cutting label in the late 19905 show enormous variety. But they all, in their different ways, pillage older styles—mostly Latin—for their own purposes..."
Simon Broughton, Mark Ellingham, Richard Trillo (1999) World Music: Latin & North America, Caribbean, India, Asia and Pacific, pp 418, 646. Rough Guides. ISBN 9781858286365 "But in Washington Heights, the overwhelmingly Dominican barrio that produced them, hundreds of imitators are cropping up, performing live street shows, subway revues and house parties in the hopes of being discovered by the recording industry — which is hot right now for Latin house."
Cristina Veran (April 1998). "El Ritmo", page 153 in Vibe magazine. "Danny and Victor Vargas wrote and produced a consistent stream of Latin house hits under numerous names..."
Marcello Carlin (2011). The Blue in the Air, pp. 116–117. John Hunt Publishing. ISBN 9781846947711
Lionel Cantu (2009). The Sexuality of Migration: Border Crossings and Mexican Immigrant Men, page 143. NYU Press. ISBN 9780814758496 "Some, such as Arena in Hollywood, target a younger clientele with a 'rave' type of atmosphere and a mix of Latin House, Rock en Español, and some more mainstream queer dance music. These types of clubs are perhaps best described as American gay bars with a Latin flavor; that is, they are very similar in most respects to mainstream gay clubs except that the majority of the patrons are Latino."
Ramon Rivera-Servera (2012). Performing Queer Latinidad: Dance, Sexuality, Politics, page 159. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472051397 "Contemporary club music, especially Latin House and Jungle, use Latin motifs as rhythmic overlays onto contemporary pop music. For example, just like in the case of Selena's club remixes, a recent Latin house version of Pink's 'Get the Party Started' at Escuelita, a Latina/o gay club in midtown Manhattan, brought up the energy of the song with the cutting in of fast-paced percussion that looped after each repetition of the title phrase. As such, Afro-Latin rhythm functions as a global text, mass produced and circulated around the globe as a marker of latinidad."
Stephen Amico (2013). "Su Casa es Mi Casa: Latin House, Sexuality, Place", in Sheila Whiteley, Jennifer Rycenga Queering the Popular Pitch, pp. 131–54 Routledge. ISBN 9781136093708 (This is a musicologist/sociologist analysis of Latin house music, talking about the musical sources, the typical rhythmic patterns, and the short history of the genre in society, especially among gay clubgoers.)

I should note that it wasn't fair for me to say that none of my sources were shared with Michig. In fact most of my sources – five of them – were the same. These are good sources which should not have been dismissed by TPH. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available souces. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Binksternet's leg-work renders this a no-brainer. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. If TPH is as concerned as he claims that the sources are in the AfD rather than in the article itself, Binksternet have provided added material that he can start to fix the issue productively. 21:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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) — Za wl 00:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Fence[edit]

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

No sourcing found whatsoever, utterly fails WP:BAND Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Even by TPH's standards this is a pathetic nomination. The first 2 pages of Google results include: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Topic ban long overdue. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG as per a WP:BEFORE source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are there WP:BEFORE and just need to be added into the article. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:20, 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. I do not userfy articles, but other admins may. Sandstein 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Evangelista[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Some sources have been added since but the subject still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Specific concerns with the suitability of the sources are:

ligafemenil.mx - this is a primary source and not suitable to support GNG
diariodecolima.com - this is a very brief article that does nothing other than confirm she plays for Monterrey
elcomentario.ucol.mx - this is a primary source and not suitable to support GNG as it is the newspaper of the university she attends, Universidad de Colima
afmedios.com - this is a very brief routine match report about a game she played at the World Student Games. She's mentioned very briefly and there is essentially nothing of significance that could be used to build an encyclopedic article.
primeraplanamx.com this does contain some content that could be used to support GNG, but a quarter of the article is concerned with the WSG team selection.
afmedios.com another very brief article that notes only a few games she plays in and confirms participation in the WSG. There is nothing of significance here that has not been dealt with in sources above (I'm not sure why we have four sources confirming WSG participation anyway).
excelsior.com.mx - this is a routine match report. The player is mentioned by name only. This is the definition of trivial coverage
fmfstateofmind.com - This is a routine match summary. The player is mentioned by name only. This is the definition of trivial coverage again. Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article was tagged for deletion on January 5 along with 60+ other articles about women players in this top-level women's league by Fenix down, the same editor nominating here on January 13. Myself and a few other editors who work in the area of women's football/soccer have been going through the mass deletion attempt and adding references and expanding content. I would agree this one is not quite ready to meet WP:GNG as is. There seems to be a rush to delete it though, so Fenix down (or closing editor) if you'll be kind enough to userfy this article to my userspace, I'll work on improving it further when more time allows. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a realistic chance of this indinitial passing GNG in the near future. Im not sure of the benefits of userfying at this stage. I'm not prepared to userfy but am a happy to abide by whatever consensus is achieved here. Fenix down (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request Will the closing editor here please userfy this article or move to draft so it can be improved? Hmlarson (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or move to draft. I have no idea how successful Liga MX Femenil has been in gathering media attention, but the inaugural season began in July 2017, so there has been very little time to know if these players will pass WP:GNG and whether this could be a future WP:SNG, which would be better based on WP:N rather than $$$. I'm not comfortable with an attempted mass deletion of articles on athletes who are all women in Mexico, as I have concern about WP:Systemic bias. It doesn't cost anything to let the articles mature for a while, particularly if there is a group of editors who are willing to work on them. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google News results for Liga MX Femenil. Hmlarson (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is no where near passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:56, 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. Sandstein 20:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All-Japan Judo Federation sexual abuse allegations[edit]

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

This was a contested Prod with no reason given. The original Prod was No hint that any of this was sexual in nature. Harsh training at an unacceptable level, bullying. Article in its current state is poorly translated, mis-titled, and mis categorized. PRehse (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems like a good candidate for WP:TNT. The article as written makes little sense in English and I didn't see anything that indicates this was about "sexual abuse". It appears to be more about complaints of overly harsh training. Papaursa (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't see anything in the article that discusses the title, I think the proper vote is Delete. Papaursa (talk) 15:16, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Callanecc, CSD G5: Created by a blocked user in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Council of Churches in Pakistan[edit]

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

All of the sources cited are either unreliable or non-indepedent of the subject. there is passing mentions in some news releases but no-indepth coverage. Saqib (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 14 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 delete. Speedy deleted by Callanecc, CSD G5: Created by a blocked user in violation of ban or block Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhuwat[edit]

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

passing mentions only and no-indepth coverage in the RS. I think it fails WP:COMPANY. Saqib (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Hi Saqib, Have you check ever what is this organization about? It has a vital part in Pakistan for poverty alleviation. Please look on these Pakistani Government websites which are mentioning there work.

http://irg.punjab.gov.pk/node/94
http://fatada.gov.pk/project/governor-fata-interest-free-loan-scheme/
https://www.punjab.gov.pk/node/2386
http://bisp.gov.pk/profile-of-dr-amjad-saqib/ (Founder of Akhuwat)
https://punjab.gov.pk/node/2713
https://www.punjab.gov.pk/node/2106
http://www.cm.punjab.gov.pk/node/1387 (Approval of Akhuwat University)
http://cmsmu.punjab.gov.pk/cm_selfemployment_scheme (Punjab Govt with Akhuwat Self-Employment Scheme)
http://www.cm.punjab.gov.pk/node/2801 (Punjab Govt with Akhuwat Self-Employment Scheme)

News Coverage is already cited in the article. EShami (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: EShami (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

An organization is considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, and independent secondary sources, not in government sources so please don't use government sources. So please don't violate WP:PRIMARY SOURCE by citing affiliated government sources which would obviously glorify anything about the topic - due to very same reason BISP page on Akhuwat unsurprisingly states "Akhuwat, world’s largest interest free microfinance program." Usage of gov sources Its also trigger COI and compromise the neutrality of the article. Also please note, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. --Saqib (talk) 12:03, 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bioenvironmental Engineering[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced meandering, no sources found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - come on man. The style of the article may need some work and certainly it needs sources, but those exist in spades. How much more official than this do you want it? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article is poorly sourced and written. However it is quite clear there are sources - e.g. books or Bioenvironmental Engineering Undergraduate Program at Rutgers.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The creator of the article hasn't edited for ten years or so and I wish he had done more. I think the article is fixable.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source was weak in the article but they are out there as pointed out by Elmidae. Would be good if Wikipedia could change its policy for every article and content should by support not only by sources but also inline citations to be accepted as a public article by editor who input the info instead place the content there and waiting for other interested editor to fix it. This article is the example as it has been around for more than 10 years, with no interested editors come along, and nothing much has been done on citing source. Wikipedia is based on openness concept but sometimes guidelines could change to prerequisite rules to edit- this is just merely my opinion. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sources are there that show it's a very definitely a career/degree/post (though not every job title necessarily deserves a page about it). It would be especially great if editors who, having taken the trouble to find sources and argue for a keep, would be willing to go just that little bit further and pop a few of those references into the article under examination. I agree with CASSIOPEIA sentiment: it does often seem we're having to clear up after other people's laziness in referencing. It's exactly the same at WP:NPP, and it's only at WP:AFC that good quality referencing really gets pushed for. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kimmins[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 07:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable actor....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:45, 14 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Company (Heroes)[edit]

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

Literally 100% in-universe. No out-of-world notability, just a huge whack of fancruft Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not covered by multiple non-primary reliable sources. Sro23 (talk) 01:15, 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. Sandstein 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generals and admirals of World War I and World War II[edit]

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

This list is an amalgamation of topics that together simply do not make sense in NPOV way. Why mix World War I and World War II leaders? Why mix admirals and generals? Furthermore, the author(s) of this page have insisted on including only the "notable" generals and admirals AKA whichever ones they deem important or relevant enough. The lead reads "The following list includes notable World War I generals and admirals who also served in some capacity with their country's military during World War II, either in command of frontline troops, as reservists, in an administrative role, or in an honorary position as in the case of von Bohm-Ermoli. A few, such as Mannerheim or Smuts, had been generals before the war, but the majority were promoted after 1914. This list excludes World War I veterans who were promoted to general after 1918, such as George S. Patton, Charles De Gaulle, or Bernard Montgomery, and generals from countries that participated in World War I but were neutral during World War II, such as Turkish field marshal Fevzi Çakmak." (it pays to see the remainder of the body text in this article under "Axis" to see how the authors define their own criteria without any basis in sources). Noting this alongside the fact that the article only has two measly citations to a source of dubious quality for two of the list points, this is essentially an essay list. No sources as far as I know have established the notability of WWI generals and admirals that "served in some capacity with their country's military" during WWII. Note that we also have more proper lists such as Axis leaders of World War II, Allied leaders of World War II, and Allied leaders of World War I that handle the information as it should be (I say this to emphasize that there is nothing to salvage from this article.) Indy beetle (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable intersection, no need to conflate the two wars, doing so creates multiple overlap problems. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's still a work in progress which, when finished, will provide military historians with the names of every WWI general who participated in WWII. Admirals, being the naval counterpart to generals, may also receive their own article, or a separate section in this one. None of the other three articles listed contain information about the wars in which the leaders served, or (for the article on WWII generals) the rank they held in November 1918. The article on leaders doesn't distinguish between civilians and military officers. It also splits the Axis and Allies into two separate articles, rather than having everything on one page for ease of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have an opinion to share on whether this sort of thing should be kept, but if this is supposed to be an intersection of people who were generals or admirals in both wars, the current article title doesn't convey that. — Warren. ‘ talk , 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is a really bizarre topic for a list. Why would we mix two different wars? Since we already have the other list articles mentioned above, we can safely delete this without losing anything.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable list, in and of itself, subjective, incomplete amalgamation. Kierzek (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What if the admirals were removed and the article renamed to its original title Generals of World War I and World War II? The references have also been updated, although I think they are unnecessary because all the info is in the article about the individual general — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why mix the generals of two different wars together? Especially under this contrived criteria? Also sourcing for any list on Wikipedia or any article is of the utmost importance. I could maybe see a "List of Allied military leaders of World War I" as fork of the Allied leaders of World War I list or similar. At any rate, I'd talk it over with the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history before creating such a list. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article only includes individuals who served as generals in both wars (being promoted to general before 1918, and still in service with their country's military after 1939). The two World Wars were less than 20 years apart, and the First had a big impact on the Second. If the title is confusing, I'm open to suggestions for an alternative.

Comment - Renamed page to World War I generals who served in World War II. Hopefully this will be less confusing for readers.

Weak keep – mildly interesting, the new name is a vast improvement, I was going to suggest Admirals and generals of World War I who served in World War II. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Excellent suggestion Cavalryman. I'll change it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talk • contribs) 12:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Passing off a list as an article is confusing. And I am led to wonder, What is the utility of this list?Georgejdorner (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not meet WP:LISTN; an unencyclopedic cross categorisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is different Coffman. It would be an unencyclopedic cross categorization if it was only about British or Americans who served as generals in both world wars. As you can see however this article includes generals from every country, and both Axis and Allies. User:53zodiac —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deljou Art Group[edit]

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

References are to the subject's own site, mapquest, something blank, and a very niche art expo writeup. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous promotion by an obvious (but undeclared) WP:COI editor. This appears to be exactly the sort of advertisement masquerading as something else ("... not identifiable as advertising to consumers ...", likely to "... mislead consumers into believing [it is] independent, impartial, or not from the sponsoring advertiser itself ...") that is considered "deceptive" – and thus illegal – in the United States under rules laid down by the Federal Trade Commission (some discussion here). Wikimedia projects are governed by American law. We do not tolerate promotion of any kind, and we certainly cannot tolerate promotion that may be illegal. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I may have made a mistake in accepting this article via Articles for Creation. I will review it again and offer my revised opinion in one to three days. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author has again been asked to declare any conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the language is highly promotional and even there is a notability, in it's current form the article is beyond salvation. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a combination of notability issues and tone issues, and because some of what was in the draft when I accepted it has been redacted as copyvio. I will note that the author has not replied about conflict of interest. I may have made a mistake on this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are very sad.198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:27, 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freeciv[edit]

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

Could potentially be merged into the Civilization series article, or made part of a larger article on Civilization mods... or it could just as easily be deleted as there appear to be no sources beyond the primary kind. Coin945 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of RS to estabilish notability:

pro-linux.de: [53] (1999), [54] (2013; version 2.4.0), [55] (2015; version 2.5.0), [56] (2017; news about 3D web version)

heise.de/iX: [57] (2015; FreeCiv and AI), [58] (2017; short news about 3D web version)

Linux Magazin: [59] (issue 10/2001; coverage in column by Georg C. F. Greve)

Amiga Future (coverage of the Amiga version): [60] (December 2000/January 2001 - issue 28, pp. 40-41), [61] (September/October 2002 - issue 38, pp. 46-47), (November/December 2002 - issue 39, pp. 23-25; play tips) Pavlor (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this open-source software title is inspired by the original Civilization, it is an entirely different development. This freeware title is actually mentioned in that article. I think it is distinctive enough that this article should remain separate and not merged into the Civilization (series) article. Nutster (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep German Linux articles are enough Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 14 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in the Metroid series[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination per consensus at its latest RfD (was an article converted to redirect & now consensus is to restore article and send to AfD for consideration). I am neutral in this discussion/nomination. TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft that belongs in the Metroid Wikia. There are very few creatures that are notable from Metroid, who aren't already considered characters. Due to the nature of the title, it can't really redirect anywhere without being misleading._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a glossary, rather than a list of creature types. very few are notible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773's suggestion, I agree it classifies as WP:GAMECRUFT. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 05:41, 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FK Stanišić[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Looks like a fairly old club in the lower leagues in Serbia, we have non-league football club articles, I can't see why this should be deleted. Govvy (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 13:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability detected per WP:FOOTY/Notability...No evidences of participating in national Serbian cup!--Safe My Edit (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability unless someone can show participation at any point in a national cup competition. Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Items in the Metroid series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural nomination that I am nominating per this RfD (log page link). I am neutral in this discussion. TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious fancruft that, as with most video game items, isn't notable. The restored article is entirely WP:OR and would have no relevance as a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overlong, unnecessary fancruft. --Cadillac000 (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unsourced fancruft KylieTastic (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously cruft Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a few days of thinking about it, yeah, this is a WP:GAMECRUFT violation that probably won't be anything but that without some WP:TNT. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 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. Michig (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kersh[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found. Page cited to passing mentions and WP:SPIP sources. Separately, I nominated the subject's company for discussion as well; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4cabling. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some of the sources cited in the article (like the first three) appear to give the subject significant coverage without being primary-source interviews. Is there something about them that makes them non-RS? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 out of three sources are based on interviews, as in:

[Kersh] founded the business seven years ago and says it is now turning over about $8 million a year. (...) "That's why we stood up and took notice when, a few years ago, a guy started up a competing business", she said. Source
"It's never been my dream to sell cables", Kersh says... (another source)

The first source describes Kersh being named as Young Manager of the Year for New South Wales, but this does not seem to be a significant enough honour. Much of the article is built on self promotion; the subject has not achieved anything significant just yet to warrant an encyclopedia article. Both pages are part of the walled garden created by the same contributor, presumably with a promotional intent. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in your other AFD, coverage based on interviews isn't the same as interviews. One is reporting by a reliable source, the other is equivalent to a primary source. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independemt sources inckuding those coted in the article. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was withholding a decision until the nominator responded to my query, and now that I find I disagree with the nominators reasoning with respect to the sources, I believe the subject has sufficient independent reliable source coverage to keep. I don't like this; in fact if I had my way, Wikipedia would have only posthumous biographies with very few exceptions, but we have to live within the policies and guidelines that exist now. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 4cabling. Clearly no reason to have both articles, but it would be more appropriate to have the content in the article for the company given the company is the only thing Kersh is really notable for. (See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4cabling.) Kb.au (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging is not AfD's problem. The portions of interviews provided by the interviewer and the publisher's staff are third party sources, so the nomination has made undue assumptions about the sources. Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 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. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Jay[edit]

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

No evidence of musical notability. This article has no independent sources. Google search does not turn up any independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that Jay meets the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Nestle[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements for biographies or the general notability criteria. I am unable to find reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in any kind of depth. The sources provided in the article are simply links to mixtapes with no indication that these mixtapes are even close to notable. To top it off, his website is a dead link. Pichpich (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promotional article about an unremarkable DJ lacking in significant coverage in reliable sources. The awards won are not only unverifiable but also un-notable and insufficient in conferring automatic notability on the subject. A Google search yields nothing but audio and video links of his songs. Nothing substantial to warrant passing WP:NMUSIC. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:17, 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 the comments with the most basis in policy and analysis of sourcing were on the side of deletion here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ozi Amanat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Run-of-the-mill businessman. The companies he works for might be notable, but he is not. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Deleted in 2010, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozi Amanat. Edwardx (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is a multi-millionaire, and founder of K2 VC and K2 Global, a 250$ million dollar company, And serving as Chief Investment Officer for 2 billion dollar company Spice Global. Notability clearly asserted in text and supported by ample sources. Indeed, it clearly passes Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines. A quick source check shows several more Google news sources.

Alos, considering him a notable investor, who has invested in several renowned and notable companies including Facebook, Twitter, Uber, Spotify, Alibaba, Palantir, Airbnb, Twilio, Magic Leap and Paytm, I tend to keep.

However, article may need NPOVing. Instead of deletion, FIXing the problem is more better.--223.180.28.98 (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are obvious content problems. Simply being wealthy is not a notability guideline (though at a certain point coverage such as Forbes' The World's Billionaires will make a person notable). More of the coverage is about K2 Global than about Ozi himself (and what's with the mononym?) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 20:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nearly all articles provided as "references" are about the investment company, not Amanat, and only mention him briefly as the founder. As an example, from the article's Straits Times reference:
The investment firm, led by Singapore-based chief Ozi Amanat...
And the Yahoo Finance reference:
The investment firm, led by Ozi Amanat...
That's the only mention of him in those sources. These articles aren't about Amanat, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Simply being the head of an investment firm, or on the board of a notable company, is not enough to establish encyclopedic notability. Being a "multi-millionaire" is too WP:RUNOFTHEMILL these days to bestow notability; he's not getting coverage dedicated to him for his wealth. Nothing here supports notability for this individual. At best the articles provided justify mentioning him on the investment firm's article--not giving this person their own WP:BLP. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to meet WP:GNG, AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP SeraphWiki (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems the individual himself is not notable. He himself did not do any investments, but rather the company he was part of did it. So this means, the achievements are that of the company, not this guy himself as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Media reports quote him as an executive of the company or as Chief Investment Officer, but they do not say that these were his own personal achievements. In any case, simply doing a bunch of investments and being a millionaire is nothing notable anyway. So delete.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DreamLinker: I would have appreciated if you read the article carefully and would have checked the facts before voting/commenting in AFD. The subject is the founder/owner of the two VC firm, that is K2 VC and K2 Global. He is also a chief investment officer (CIO) of B. K. Modi's Spice Global. The chief investment officer is a job title for the board level head of investments within an organization. It clearly makes the subject pass general notability guidelines. Apart from this, he is an independent director of the e-commerce company YuuZoo. (It is not mentioned in the Wiki article, I found it while researching on Google, ref. here) Also, the subject is the recipient of the Young Peacemaker Award and was nominated for CIO of the Year by the Family Office Review. Considering all these facts, I believe, an individual notability has been clearly established. There many refs. I found during research, which can be added to the article, but it's not there. Try to fix problems. deletion is not the solution. @Shelbystripes and Power~enwiki: --223.180.18.201 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being a CIO of a company does not, by itself, "clearly [make] the subject pass general notability guidelines" as you suggest. There are many past and present CIOs of even larger companies who don't pass WP:GNG or warrant a WP:BLP. I don't think being "nominated" for some CIO of the year award counts either. Generally speaking, in categories of BLPs with established guidelines, it's the winning a notable award that establishes notability. And I've never heard of "Family Office Review" and don't know why it's considered a notable awards ceremony for corporate officials. You'll need to back that up if it's the reason you're asserting notability. We just don't/shouldn't do BLPs on every moderately successful investor, and individuals who run investment firms inherently end up as officers or directors of some companies they've invested in as part of their job duties, so that can't be enough to make one of them notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to 223.180.18.201 I did read about the subject's involvement in K2 VC/K2 Global. While they may be 2 companies on paper, they seem to be essentially the same (based on reports about their investments). Being members of founding teams of multiple companies is nothing notable. It should be noted that he is not the only one involved. There are others involved as well. So any achievements of the VC firms are of the firms as a whole, not of the individual. As for independent director, many companies appoint a person from an investing firm to their boards, which is nothing notable. Even the link you cited reads like a routine press release in a non-notable VC focused publication. The awards are one of the many run-of-them-mill-awards in this field. There is neither enough individual achievement nor enough WP:NOTINHERITED independent coverage to justify an article.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage isn't about him. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are not about him or only mention his name in association with K2 VC. Being part of a losing bid for Forbes does not add notability. I am a multi-millionaire and a company starter and investor in some of those companies and I am sure none of that makes me notable. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the points made above. I do believe the article meets the criteria of notability. The article can be improved by adding more ref. Deletion is not the solution. --106.209.236.196 (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to K2 Global, which is what most of the coverage is about. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:39, 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.