The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 05:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teodor von Burg[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Von Burg is categorized here as a mathematician. If so, then he must have a list of profound and recognized contributions to mathematics. As far as I see, he entered Exeter College undergraduate studies in 2012 but there is no information whether he finished it, no knowledge about distinction or recognitions particular to his study.

No one is a notable mathematician for just being successful at secondary school math level competitions.

His success at IMO is not correctly valued. Von Borg never won the first place. The highest one was the third place in 2010. So, if we give gold medal to the competition winner, the silver to the runner up, then this student would have no more than a single bronze medal in five runs. The criterion to win gold was to get no less than 30 out of 42 points. The real IMO competition star was Ciprian Manolescu, who participated 3 times, and every time he scored perfect 42 points (already noticed by Arimakat).

All those awards are no more than local moral incentives given to a promising student.

• Strong delete nom --BTZorbas (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Note to closing admin: the above bulleted !vote has been added by nominator in direct contravention of WP:AFDFORMAT.  --Lambiam 19:48, 16 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral - I'm not sure that doing well on that hellish dissection isn't notable. I notice that there's nothing on the page since 2012. Nor is there anything I can find about him at a glance. Chances are though, that he'll be producing papers soon, and there aren't that many people in Category:Serbian mathematicians ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - I do not see what makes him notable. CLCStudent (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that this article should be kept because it meets the requirements of policy. According to IMO's official website he has won four gold medals at the International Mathematical Olympiad, which is the mathematics field most important world event, widely described as the "most prestigious mathematical competitions in the world" and vaguely equal to the Olympics, which is why it's called an Olympiad. He was also won a silver medal and a bronze medal. All these medals can be verified. He is also second in the hall of fame, making him the IMO's second most successful participant ever. A short google search also shows many people describing him as the most successful IMO participant ever, although this is not quite accurate. But then the nominators comments are not accurate either, a gold medal is a gold medal. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also I will point out that this article was put forward to be deleted before and kept, and the points made then are still valid. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Ilyina Olya Yakovna My statements are verifiable, therefore accurate. My main point "No one is a notable mathematician for just being successful at secondary school math level competitions." holds.--BTZorbas (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However describing gold medals from what is widely described as one of the worlds most prestigious mathematics competitions as "local moral incentives given to a promising student" is not the finest example of an accurate statement. Nor is your hypothetical analogy about the medals particularly helpful since I got totally confused and thought you were saying something completely different. Also I think it is unfair to say that he is no longer notable because he is now the second most successful participant at the International Mathematical Olympiad, which is the main reason for deletion, since it was clearly decided to keep the article when he was the most successful participant. This being according to the International Mathematical Olympiad's own rankings, and not your own undisclosed personal ranking of what a notable mathematician is. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Ilyina Olya YakovnaPlease, stop distorting my statements. I said "All those awards are no more than local moral incentives given to a promising student." Search for the "award" word in the biography. Medals are not awards nor I ever equate these two things.--BTZorbas (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the English language the word "medal" is a synonym of "award" with near identical meaning.^[1][2][3] You should have specified what awards you were talking about rather than vaguely stating "those awards" as you did not mention any awards other than his gold medals in what you wrote. English is not my first language but I feel you have written your comment in a most unclear way and without saying why exactly Teodor von Burg is not notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Ilyina Olya Yakovna Please, stop talking nonsense. English language, as any spoken language, is context dependent. I've used these two words ("medal", "award") exclusively in the biography context. The other two users who commented my proposal did not find anything wrong with the proposal.--BTZorbas (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my complaint, you don't give any context, you just write about his IMO medals then make a random comment about awards and expect everyone to know what you mean.

But to break it down. He has:

• 4 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze medals at the International Mathematical Olympiad.
• 3 gold, 3 silver medals at the Balkan Mathematical Olympiad.
• 2 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze medals at the Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad.
• He is the most successful ever competitor of the Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad.
• He is the second most successful ever competitor of the International Mathematical Olympiad. (first place for 3 years).
• Record youngest competitor of the Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad, Balkan Mathematical Olympiad and International Mathematical Olympiad.
• He has taken part in 57 other mathematical competitions, with: 44 first, 11 second, and 2 third prizes.
• Saint Sava Award, for his contribution and commitment in the field of education.
• He was awarded the Charter of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
• Karić Brothers Award, in the field of scientific and research work.
• By my count, ten reliable sources in the article/identified.
• Another six or so non-English sources, being news reports and biographies that no one has included.
• A great many of mentions, mostly saying how he is the world's best young mathematician.

So really my point is why do you think this is not good enough? What possible reason to delete this article is there? It is very clear to me that he is notable according to your policy entitled WP:GNG and the other policy called WP:BIO which says the same. You are just hiding the facts behind vagueness that cannot be understood and pretending your concept of who is a notable mathematician is relevant when the policy clearly disagrees with you. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Being a student competitor in math is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not by itself, but what about being a world-class competitor in the most renowned international maths competition in conjunction with having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Having written a book is also not a sign of notability, but that is not a particularly good reason for deleting Lemony Snicket.  --Lambiam 11:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam The most renowned international SECONDARY SCHOOL maths LEVEL competition? Right? That competition is certainly a notable event, but neither of the competitors is a notable mathematician. Right?--BTZorbas (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTZorbas, I think you are confusing what is a notable person according to the policy with your opinion of what is a notable mathematician according to an external guide designed for adults, probably professors at that. There is no policy specially for mathematician's on Wikipedia, I have looked very carefully. Also for Wikipedia notability it does not matter that he is not an adult because his achievements are out of the ordinary. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. So far as I can see his work is cited by nobody. Not a single citation on GS. Fails WP:Prof and WP:GNG, nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It worries me that you cannot see.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]} There is much more, try searching for Teodor fon Burg (16,400 results) and Teodor von Burg (52,500 results). Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to look at this essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

You might want to actually read WP:NPROF. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that and contributed to several of its archived talk pages. What should I be looking for? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Well the WP:NPROF policy says it only applies to academics/professors and this person is not an academic and has never worked as one, certainly not as a professor. Then you say that the article "Fails WP:Prof, nothing else.". Yet in the WP:NPROF policy it clearly says:

From WP:NPROF.
This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.[1] It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines.

Therefore your recommendation to delete, based on the fact that this article fails an optional policy which does not apply to the article seems really strange to me. Because if the article fails nothing else as you say that should be a reason to keep. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilyina Olya Yakovna Could you, please, refrain from further distortions of other people comments and Wikipedia rules misinterpretations? The guideline segment you quoted above talks about notability of AN ACADEMIC NOT ABOUT A SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENT NOTABILITY!--BTZorbas (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I am saying. What part of,

Delete. So far as I can see his work is cited by nobody. Not a single citation on GS. Fails WP:Prof, nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

has any basis in policy or any relevance to this person whatsoever? Sorry for being a perfectionist. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, because this is confounding the (possibly already questionable) values of undergraduate contests and their notability, like some Olympics or Olympiads (a misconception of meaning as a contest per se), themselves and the notability of their "medalists", who still have to show their notability on the job. (Does "least non-notable" exist, and is a notable property therefore?) Purgy (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)′[reply]
• Weak keep (!vote altered per TimTempleton - cultural differences) WP:GNG doesn't require that editors spend time analyzing if somebody is important or not. It simply requires we find if enough coverage in independent reliable sources exists. It undoubtedly does, therefore specific sub guidelines from WP:BIO or others are mostly irrelevant - they are there to help make a decision but shouldn't be abused to delete something simply because one has never heard of it or because subject doesn't meet one specific sub-criteria which might not even apply. If this were the one-time winner of some competition, then yes delete per WP:BLP1E. However, article subject has received sustained coverage for multiple events and, per WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." - The 'Charter of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts', if not the gold medals (which I agree are probably not that important), is clearly such an significant award, being awarded by a national level institution. Judging the intent behind the award is WP:OR and does not render the award moot. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ilyina Olya Yakovna alias 198.84.253.202 Yet another misinterpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines from the same person. WP:ANYBIO states:
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
Von Burg is categorized as a mathematician. If so, then where is the list of his contributions "in his specific field"? I found none.--BTZorbas (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pings don't work for IPs.WP:ANYBIO 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 [emphasis mine]" - there is no requirement to meet all conditions. Of course, it is possible that a subject meets the criteria and is yet not notable, however given the repeated coverage in RS I don't think that is the case here. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTZorbas, what are you talking about? This person has made a massive impact to Serbian mathematics, he is the best known junior mathematics competitor of his generation. This is explained many times in ten national newspapers over several years. And there is no doubt this will remain on the historical record for some time, especially if he goes on to do mathematics after graduation, because it is an achievement that is out of the ordinary. I seriously doubt you are doing anything but trying to hold up your nomination now, seriously there is no shame in making the article better rather than deleting it. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTZorbas, what do you base your accusation on that 198.84.253.202 and Ilyina Olya Yakovna are the same editor? Merely on the fact that they agree on this issue? You cannot wildly fling accusations around without specific evidential basis.  --Lambiam 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional delete. First, let's clarify some things. He certainly doesn't pass WP:PROF, but that's irrelevant if he passes WP:GNG. The nomination says that he's listed as a mathematician but is not notable as a mathematician, but again, this is not an argument for deletion (at most, it might be an argument for removal from mathematician categories).
  But does he pass GNG? At a cursory look, I really don't think so. The hits that are being adduced as evidence seem mainly to be what you would call "passing mentions" (e.g., a listing in a table of competition winners). To support notability, you'd need the source to say, at a minimum, something beyond the fact that he won. I don't think we want to establish a regime of presumptive notability just for winning math contests, even prestigious ones.
  I said "provisional" because I could certainly have missed some more meaty coverage in the sea of trivial hits. If that's the case, the defenders should narrow down the refs being adduced as evidence and point us to the strongest ones. Also, this is a case where he may not be notable now, but there's a strong possibility he'll become notable in the future, and the deletion should carry no prejudice against re-creation in that case. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Article with in depth coverage from Serbian news station B92.
  • link Extended in depth coverage for when Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic congratulated Teodor von Burg on one of his gold medals. Source is from mid-market Serbian newspaper Blic.
  • link An in depth article about Teodor von Burg receiving a scholarship to study at Oxford University after his acclaimed Olympiad successes. Source is from the Serbian newspaper Večernje novosti.
  • link Article in Basta Balkana magazine.
  • link another article from Večernje novosti.

• @Trovatore: I show these articles so that it is easier for you and you don't need to look at all the links or search on Google, where there is more, although it is mostly more of the same, but from different sources. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No. 19 is an interview and No. 26 seems to contain some biographical data - that seems to satisfy the criteria. A good number are indeed simply lists of winners. Agree with the remark against prejudice in case this gets deleted (though one must take care not to get into WP:CRYSTAL territory, unlike Ilyina above). WP seems to have also a lacking coverage of subjects which are not British or American (Battle of Charleroi is an example I'm working on - compare with the excellent coverage on closely related Battle of Mons which involves British troops). As I said above, subject also meets criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO for winning a nationally prestigious award. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw my !vote. It does look like there are sources with more than trivial mentions (note to User:Ильина Оля Яковна: sometimes less is more — if you had started with those, rather than spamming in tens of trivial hits, it would have been more convincing from the start). As to whether the sources are "reliable", I don't have any reason to think they're not, but I also have no familiarity with them. So I'll abstain for now. --Trovatore (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of substantive independent sources that are actually about the subject - unsurprising given his age. WP:TOOSOON, at best. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per that linked page, "WP:ANYBIO allows that ANY individual, actors included, may be presumed notable if 'the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times'," which article subject did receive. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, even listing 5 articles that are only about this person, people still pay no attention and say it should be deleted, it seems Wikipedia is biased against young people. I will not watch this page now. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP isn't biased against anything - editors are (Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage). Again, as I said above, coverage of a sourced topic shouldn't be deleted simply because it is something distant to most editors. The sad thing about discussions is that people don't always take the time to read every comment, often making summary judgements with little basis in either sources or policy (often misunderstood). If it was just me, I'd say ignore WP:GNG when it prevents you adding a good article about something, and this is a case were WP:IAR should apply even if there are more persons who say "delete" (ignoring this isn't a vote and that restatement of the same opinion isn't an argument). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there's no claim of notability other than his performance at high-school level competitions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re above "national level award" + non-trivial mention in RS 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I went to his Serbian Wikipedia page [[4]], to see what kind of sourcing there was, since the limited sourcing for this English article and a Google search in English clearly point to a delete. I don't read Serbian, but was able to identify four news articles from Serbian publications, of which three were just about him. Amidst a handful of dead links, the rest are announcements about the math olympiad tournament and promotional fliers. That's just not quite enough, especially when you consider how because of cultural differences, this news would be of much more interest to Serbian media than to the US. (Anyone here know that the US was one of two teams ever to get perfect team scores at the Olympiad? Me neither. Fails WP:GNG. Probably also WP:TOOSOON, since there's no current scholarly news coming from Oxford, but that may change and this can be revisited. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP:TOOSOON: the subject is not yet notable per review of available sources. High-school level competitions are an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the subject is not claimed to be notable as an academic - and other claims to notability include national level awards which meet WP:ANYBIO (and judging the intent behind has no basis in any policy). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Pseudo-biography that may be TOOSOON. Birthdate/place and nothing else--------fast forward------mathematics student that won several awards----fast forward----- nothing since 2012. Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-Libertarian[edit]

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

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

Appears to be promotion for radicalcapitalist.org and/or the philosophies/politics it represents. The page name itself is almost certainly a neologism and searches only return similar organisations and opinion pieces. The sources provided certinly do not assert notability. A CSDcorp I issued was declined because I first assumed this to be an organised group of people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was in the process of nominating it myself. This doesn't appear to be a notable topic. There are only two sources cited, a personal blog I've never heard of and a Facebook page, neither of which are reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A neologism with no reliable source provided, obvious delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I declined the csd -- I should have realized there was another speedy criterion that did fit well enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't find any reliable sources, none suggested by the article.Jacona (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE per Jacona - absence of reliable sources Thalium (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find any reliable sources either. Lacypaperclip (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from OR, this seems to be a POV fork of libertarian conservatism and alt-right. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment: Speedy close please. This article is a 98.7% COPYVIO of 4chan.org, a Wikipedia blacklisted forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked for copyvio here, they appear to have copied from us. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow delete because I wanted to get in on the fun. Lepricavark (talk) 01:22, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated biotectural system[edit]

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

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

1. WP:NOT advert Reads like a press release for an indiscernible product that didn't happen. 2. WP:N Failed to WP:V with so many dead links that make me question if there's any RS for this, and PROD and number of editors questioning both of these on the talk means it should be AfDed Widefox; talk 23:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:34, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Oldham explosion[edit]

2012 Oldham explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Classic WP:NOTNEWS event. Mattg82 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This does not appear to pass WP:EVENT and it especially fails WP:LASTING. There are two bursts of RS coverage; first for the event itself and second for the criminal proceedings eight months later. After that coverage disappears. Blowing up one's house by tampering with the gas is not that unusual a crime. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and Gene93k above. No sense in having an entry for every time someone manages to blow their house up by behaving stupidly, or Wikipedia could be filled with reports of exploding meth labs. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The gas explosion, caused by a suicidal man, killed a 2-year-old in a nearby house. Twelve neighboring houses were destroyed, adn 175 houses evacuated. Three houses were destroyed and 100 houses evacuated. A memorial fund to the dead child paid for a play area/ park for children. The explosion was a national story, in all the British papers, Child dies and man badly burnt as 'gas blast' wrecks homes, Jenkins, Russell. The Times; London (UK) [London (UK)]27 June 2012: 5. [ National: Parents of blast victim, two, pay tribute to their 'amazing little man': Family make emotional visit to site of tributes: Man, 32, released on bail pending further inquiries, Carter, Helen. The Guardian; London (UK) [London (UK)]30 June 2012: 17.); and again during trial, conviction The accidental revenge of a jilted boyfriend that killed a two-year-old boy, (Hall, Richard. The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]20 Feb 2013)[5]. A children's park was built as a memorial play park in memory of tragic gas blast toddler: The state-of-the-art equipment will be installed in Bullcote Park where Jamie Heaton took his first steps.Britton, Paul. Manchester Evening News; Glasgow (UK) [Glasgow (UK)]20 July 2015: 15. [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per E.M.Gregory. Also coverage in 2014 [7].Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per coverage established. The delete rationale from PohranicniStraze is irrelevant since we dont have an entry for every time someone blows their house up. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is lasting coverage. Add this[8] source. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while I am sympathetic to the deletion arguments, there is sufficient sourcing and evidence of lasting coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 01:24, 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) 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linsen Tower[edit]

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

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

No such tower exists. SkyscraperPage.com is the only source given and this is not a reliable source. For "one of the first and tallest wooden towers in both the state of Hesse and Germany ever built with a modern trend" it should be possible to find more sources and also images. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 21:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Right after a bit of digging around some forums I found the official website which was dead but I found a copy of it on archive.org. It basically was a project that never got started due to funding issues and since according to Google the hotel associated with it has closed it probably never will be started. Mattg82 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a strange and unique semi-WP:HOAX ... something that could have been real but never was, as discovered by Mattg82. Also fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 13:17, 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. Seems like the consensus is that the sources do not justify an article due to e.g reliability concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir[edit]

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

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

References are not to reliable sources; I can't find evidence of notability. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and for poor quality of writing.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this article is not need to be delete because this is an article about a Bangladeshi Youtuber. The reference are valid by source. All the information are right. So tell me how to stop ″Nomination of Salman Muqtadir for deletion″. If you need evidence then here is Proof. The proof reference from The Daily Star newspaper. It is the high-quality website of Bangladesh. Thank You Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 13:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Siddiq Sazzad is the Creator of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.19 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.-Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.19 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Per nom. Non notable and poor, promotional writing style. No rationale to keep this article. - Mar11 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Per nom. No reliable sources.--119.30.47.115 (talk) 06:06, 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 delete. Even if not a copyvio, the few notability concerns have not been addressed (that other topics have a page does not mean this one can as well) and all keep !voters are SPAs and aren't addressing notability issues, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Demers[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just as valid a page as Michael Mandiberg, Constant Dullaart or any other contemporary new media artist. Michael Demers is cross-listed on a dozen other content-related wikipedia pages, and this material has been online and vetted by users since 2013.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.57.124 (talk • contribs)

— 73.253.57.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep No criteria for nomination is mentioned. This person has been mentioned/published in numerous reliable sources, based on the article and a search.198.58.161.137 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Theredproject speedy-delete-tagged page Michael Demers at 02:39, 25 December 2017 for copyright violation of https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-demers-43b11781 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Anthony Appleyard where is the copyright violation? All info on the wiki page is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.57.124 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The material on the wiki that is similar to that on LinkedIn is cited to published material. If anything, LinkedIn is not citing properly. No issue here. Apexspry (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep wiki page that is similar to that on LinkedIn is cited to published material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:88C0:5E00:E4FA:2577:D7BC:F984 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 2605:6000:88C0:5E00:E4FA:2577:D7BC:F984 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I stand by my Speedy Delete for WP:COPYVIO as it is a direct word for word copy paste from https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-demers-43b11781. User:73.253.57.124 (who is/affiliated with the WP:SPA User:Apexspry?) asked User:Anthony Appleyard to bring it back, who nominated it for deletion. Re: "cross-listed on a dozen other content-related wikipedia pages, and this material has been online and vetted by users since 2013" the page is linked on 6 articles, at least 3 of which were added by Apexspry, the original author of the page, and the remainder were added by SPA IP addresses shortly thereafter. It isn't on any other wiki projects. The reality is that the page hasn't really been vetted, per se: the article has seen light editing, and other editors have come through and removed puffery, and flagged the article for various problems, and Apexspry has repeatedly removed those flags. I also note that Apexspry claims the photograph of the artist as Own Work (it also appears on the linkedin page too) which implies WP:COI also. Closing mod should not the preponderance of IP and redlink commenters here in this AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if the copyvio is real , i.e. the Linkedin page predates the wikipedia page, then you should take action to clean it up. User Dianaa is usualy happy to revdel things.198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why doesn't someone just edit the page, instead of killing it entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.57.124 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand by my Keep for Michael Demers. I am not, nor am I related to or connected to, the subject as User:Theredproject implies, so no violation of WP:COI here. I have also not repeatedly removed flags unless I have made edits to the page to correct such flags. I am not quite the power user that User:Theredproject is, but I don't think that should preclude me from being a part of this community. I will make edits to the page, even though my information is cited from printed material, and User:Theredproject can hopefully move on. Apexspry (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. Struck.198.58.161.137 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This sounds personal. User:Theredproject aka Michael Mandiberg is a new media artist, trying to censor the page of another new media artist? Conflict of interest here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.78.78 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 155.43.78.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You need to Assume Good Faith. I don't see anything personal in the nomination.198.58.161.137 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The page has been revised as to not confuse anyone concerned about WP:COPYVIO. Apexspry (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete PROMO by SPA...likely a vanity page. Most of the anon "keeps" above are likewise SPAs. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Folks, the original request of a Speedy Delete by User:Theredproject was for WP:COPYVIO. The page has since been edited to amend that complaint. Whether the page is a PROMO, or I'm a SPA, or I've got clones or am soliciting responses seem to be another issue -- and there are cogent arguments to be made against any of those assumptions (Assume Good Faith, right?). Can we resolve the issue of the WP:COPYVIO before we move on to these other (alleged) infractions?Apexspry (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification. The article is at AfD and my !vote is based on the merits of that issue. The article's subject is at a junior college and does not show any acceptable (for our purposes) impact w.r.t. publishing, books, cited articles, etc. (NOTE: There is another person having a similar name, who is well-cited.) You are a SPA in that your short edit record shows edits which only support the person of Michael Demers. There is a strong positive correlation with being a fan or vanity page, which in turn correlates strongly with not being notable. The article is basically promotional...another correlated bad sign. The sources aren't very good and the claim for notability is pretty flimsy, basically that this person is a professor and has taught. So, aside from whatever COPY problems there might have been, the problem now is demonstrating notability. I'm not seeing it. Agricola44 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Debate seemed a little suspicious, so I checked and tagged the SPA contributions. It seems that all the "keeps" so far are from SPA accts. Agricola44 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you tagged me incorrectly, and I have removed it. Check contribs properly before tagging like that.198.58.161.137 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so. Your account is 3 days old and you happened to jump into an esoteric area of internal WP debate at the same time as a whole bunch of other new-found accounts to "keep" this article? I guess you feel that because you've also made edits on a half-dozen other articles in those 3 days, you should be considered a seasoned, disinterested editor. Most seasoned, disinterested editors would not consider 3 days to be sufficient dues. Agricola44 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Me again, my IP reset. I counted 17 distinct pages that I worked on, including extensive edits to Gerald le Dain. Arrogant editors like yourself, who like to pick on IP accounts for no reason as you do here, are a significant problem in Wikipdia. I'm not an SPA, you tagged me as one...198.58.168.40 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Super. Now we're going to play some childish games. Very constructive. Agricola44 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we get back to the matter at hand? The page has been updated. Does this satisfy the initial issues as raised by User:Theredproject? And can User:Agricola44 tell me how many edits have to be recorded before he stops accusing those of us with a just a few edits as SPA?Apexspry (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You can be flippant about it, if you wish. Your edits have only supported Michael Demers, either on the article itself, or on other articles to insert his name. It suggests COI and lessens the credibility of your !vote. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promo of a non-notable artist. Why do these SPAs think they are going to fool veteran editors who have seen their tricks before? Lepricavark (talk) 01:28, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Arena League[edit]

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

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

Current sources on this article are direct from the organization. A quick search only turns up one reliable result that's blocked by a paywall. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion yet, although this does smell a bit of WP:CRYSTAL. But just so it's clear, paywalled sites are entirely acceptable as references. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am seeing two OK sources about the announcement: this and this. There is also a bit of more WP:ROUTINE coverage in this. I would likely say it is WP:TOOSOON as they don't have a single team and have not generated much in the way of coverage from very reliable sources. But others may feel differently. Yosemiter (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Delete under my toosoon argument. If this thing fizzles out, and that seems likely with their website currently showing "Account Suspended" as the mainpage, then it could never be more than the one three sentence paragraph in the lead, which makes the article fall under the problems in WP:PERMA and WP:WHYN. Yosemiter (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent sources. I could not find more than the 2 sources already mentioned above by Yosemiter. Perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON if the league finally takes off at some point.—Bagumba (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. There's not enough information or coverage about the league yet to have an article, and it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume it will ever function as a football league. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 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. Evidence of notability failed to be presented during the course of this discussion, via significant coverage, in multiple, independent, reliable, sources. Therefore, this article is found to lack the requisite notability for inclusion on this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Rice[edit]

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

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

Wrote exactly one notable song. The sources listed are all about the song he wrote, and not about him himself. Searching found no sources that were about him personally, absolutely no biographical info found whatsoever. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" after three relists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are any of these sources any good?: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Adam9007 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If this article fails notability, then it should be redirected to Cruise (song), the song mentioned by nom. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as is not notable and is only trivially mentioned on Cruise (song). PriceDL (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close  Nominator waited 12 hours and 21 minutes after the previous AfD to nominate the article again.  The volunteer community has already considered this article for three weeks.  See WP:Renominating for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Unscintillating: And absolutely none of that is set in stone. Stop wikilawyering. The last discussion was closed because it garnered no new comments after two relists. Already, this nomination has garnered a far more lively discussion than the last two combined, so it's clear that the renomination was not a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you not wait two months?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Unscintillating: Why do you think I absolutely have to? Again, it's clear that relisting immediately has had a positive effect. Two months is not mandatory. There's a reason WP:NPASR exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This wasn't a WP:NPASR closure.  Just what do you think it means "with prejudice"? (open book question).  Unscintillating (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing saying I absolutely must not reopen. Is the two months thing mandatory? NO. So stop wikilawyering. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your avoidance of the question of what it means "with prejudice" is your Wikilawyering, because this is written and you've already cited it as relevant.  But that meaning can be inferred that it means that there is a community prejudice against hasty renominations.  Please withdraw your nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Why should I withdraw a nomination that already has a significant amount of participation? That would be completely unnecessarily blunting an active discussion just for the sake of process. Again, will you just tell me what part of your so called "two month" rule is mandatory? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a wikilawyer, so I don't know, but disruption is a blockable offense when it the block is needed to prevent future disruption.  No hard feelings, ok?  I'm done here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His song "Cruise" is the highest-selling country music song of all time and only country song to receive a Diamond certification by the RIAA.[9] He has other songs too. Signed to a worldwide publishing deal with Ole Music Publishing also.desmay (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Desmay: But he wrote literally nothing else of note. He was also one of five writers on the song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable musician who co-wrote a popular country song and won some awards in life. No way this meets GNG at all. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Being one of the authors on one notable song in no way confers notability on this person. Reyk _YO! 06:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Co-writer of one of the biggest (not to mention overplayed) country hits ever. There certainly is more coverage on specifically him and his work. [10][11][12]. The nom re-nominating this in less than 24 hours is bad form. --Oakshade (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Guess it needs to be said per another comment below, these sources show significant coverage by secondary sources independent of the subject indicating passing GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simply co-writing a once popular country song is not notability. That's a WP:INHERITED violation. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITED has nothing to do with this article. WP:INHERITED would apply if this person was simply ‘’related’’ to the co-writer of one of the most popular songs in Country history who has also received in-depth coverage.--Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not meet GNG: no significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Retarget to Cruise is acceptable as an option if that's his only Wikipedia-notable contribution. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lots and lots of articles about this subject, his albums, song he's written, his wprk with other artists and his performances. I added a some.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaArmy (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge: -- the subject with co-credit with the authorship of the song, among four total contributors. This is insufficient to base notability solely on the song. Significant RS coverage addressing the subject's career has not bee presented at this AfD, so deletion should be the natural outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: Not notable per GNG. Co-wrote a song ("Cruise") with five other people that received notability. Digging around it can be found the subject is involved with the Country beach songs Sessions I, II, and II but nothing notable. Rice performs locally around Florida on front porches or the bow of a boat. A fan can find sales on iTunes or other locations and when I searched almost everything was advertisement related to purchasing a song. We end up with a pseudo-biography about a man that co-wrote a popular song. "Almost" clears WP:COMPOSER but that includes (among other criteria) "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work.". This BLP mentions "Cruise" four times and any mention I can find on searching circles around this co-wrote song. Otr500 (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Reyk. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:07, 22 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. ansh666 05:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Friends from Afar[edit]

My Friends from Afar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not yet meet WP:TVSERIES. This was previously deleted at MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:My Friends From Afar) as a draft. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Does not meet WP:TVSERIES yet. Unless non-English reliable sources are found, this may be a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. desmay (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On the fence. I'm on the fence here. There is coverage, but maybe not enough yet. The article is fairly poor, and I've needed to have chunks of copyvio revision-deleted from it twice four times already. On the other hand, it's a real thing, it obviously has some popularity, and I'm fairly sure we will end up with an article in the short to medium term. Perhaps just move it back to Draft to keep all the laboriously re-histmerged history intact? (I voted delete in the previous discussion for the Draft, but I am finding a bit more coverage now) -- Begoon 01:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak keep, on the strength of increasing coverage in reliable sources, as was always likely. -- Begoon 02:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep should keep it until the series ends, and wait for some sources to pop up. The reason for the lack of sources is due to the fact that the series is currently ongoing. -1.02 editor (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does meet WP:TVSERIES as it got national coverage and aired in the prime 9pm timeslot. Additionally, although the sources are not much, they still support the article accordingly. -1.02 editor (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a Chinese-language review from Lianhe Zaobao (very reliable source) which I believe establishes notability: [13]. Someone familiar with the show needs to add it to the article. Timmyshin (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have, but unfortunately my Chinese is of poor standards and I have no clue where to inline it. 1.02 editor (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add something: [14], but I'm relying on a very poor Google translation, and someone who can read the original Chinese should be able to vastly improve it. -- Begoon 02:05, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MindWorks Media[edit]

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

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

Nothing else but few films to their name. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, being the production company of three notable films. Mar4d (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are business ventures. So, they need significant independent coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a non notable production company. Article created as an apparent walled garden around ARY Films, with promo copy such as:

• ...ARY Films and MindWorks Media joined hands to produce Pakistani movies that intend to take the local box office to the next level...

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, no indications of notability, topic fails GNG, references fail WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 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 move to draft. Now located at Draft:Stree (2018 film). ansh666 05:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Dinesh Vijan film[edit]

Untitled Dinesh Vijan film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As of yet non-notable film that is due to be released in the future. The article as it is now fails WP:NFILM, as the film has yet to be released or even given a title. This also contitiutes a failure of WP:TOOSOON and potentially WP:CRYSTAL. Requesting and would recommend a move to draft, though deletion could also be considered. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom or at least userfy until release and can determine notability. Also, the article is poorly written and needs editing.--Rpclod (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy as titleless film that has not yet started principal photography. !dave 13:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove from mainspace draftify, userify, or delete as appropriate. If it doesn't have a title yet... Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The filming has begun. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy per WP:TOOSOON. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it TOOSOON, when the principal photography has started? Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TOOSOON to meet the WP:NOTFILM requirements, namely having a significant or lasting impact on film.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or move to userspace/draftspace if requested. This is what we have draft and userspace for. This doesn't belong in article space at this time. --Michig (talk) 16:21, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi Al Aboudi[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP and WP:MUSICIAN. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 15:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 10:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search term:

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

• Delete I was going to close this but did a search and decided to uphold the nomination. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You do not speak Arabic at all and do not understand it.So it is difficult to judge the article in the absence of these conditions.So I vote on the survival of the article and provided for improvement.These words also apply to these articles Jafar al-Kashmi,Ali Aldelfi & Nazar AlQatari.Now I want friends to vote on articles @Arthistorian1977:,@RingtailedFox:,@Abishe:,@Anarchyte:,@Narutolovehinata5:, @Operator873:, @Hebrides:, @Joe Roe:, @Onel5969:, @Derek R Bullamore:, @GrahamHardy:, @Rich Farmbrough: & @Cmr08: what is your comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamIRAQI (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia articles need to have coherent content. This article lacks any useful content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business-agile enterprise[edit]

Business-agile enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per previous discussion at Talk:Business-agile enterprise#RfC: title that exists in no books, it appears someone made this title up, but then added some marginally relevant content within. However, there's been zero effort to clean it up a few months after the RFC, so it appears to me that it's best to delete it then. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is effectively WP:OR. A non-notable neologism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:01, 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 no consensus. Consensus was not able to be established during the course of this discussion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Stamler[edit]

John H. Stamler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

County prosecutor that does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Outside of an obituary, the only mentions of him are routine during coverage of crimes that he prosecuted. Rusf10 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The basis of this nomination is disputed, as POLITICIAN has no limitation for "routine", and there is no evidence that the "mentions" are based on a WP:BEFORE D1 source search.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete county prosecutors are rarely notable for such, and nothing of the coverage is enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The basis of this !vote is disputed, as there is no evidence that "the coverage" refers to source searches, especially since the !vote found no significant GNG coverage to discuss.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Once again excellent referencing with the NYT obit and an AP obit, you can't really ask for more impeccable sourcing to meet the GNG standard for a standalone biography. That anyone would argue that "nothing of the coverage is enough to pass the general notability guidelines" is rather silly. --RAN (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputably about him meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  A NYT obit is a strong indicator of Wikipedia GNG notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Clarification: GNG begins, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..."  Sources is plural, so editors can know that one source does not satisfy GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Appears to be some bundok prosecutor with no notibility elsewhere. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The basis of this !vote is disputed, as there is evidence that it is an inflammatory and prejudicial personal attack.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Stamler was never a Wikipedia editor, and is instead the content, NPA does not apply. I'd suggest you read up on WP:HORSEMEAT or WP:GOI. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so as not to have this confused with WP:NPA, I have struck the words to which you have objected.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- so there is no confusion about my above statement, I was pointing out the the obituary was routine coverage and in the other sources Stamler was not the subject of the article, the sources merely mentioned or quoted him. I do not believe this meets GNG. Two of the keep arguments are (wrongly imo) based off of the assumption that a New York Times obituary equals automatic notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, in your nomination, you stipulated that "an obituary" was not part of the "routine" coverage of crimes he prosecuted.  Now your statement is that "the obituary" is "routine", but there are two obituaries. 
  "John Stamler named citizen of the Year" is not mere mentions or quoting him. "John Harry Stamler (December 3, 1938 – March 25, 1990)" is not mere mentions or quoting him. 
  Your post here misrepresents me for claiming "automatic notability" for the NYT obit, as my actual words are "a strong indicator".  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if this guy has ten obituaries, it doesn't establish notability. And the citizen of the year award by the "Memorial General Development Foundation" is a joke because no one has ever heard of that foundation, it's not a notable award.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This person seems noteworthy to me. Jefstevens (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  From this diff of 30 December 2017, we have DGG saying, "As for the NYT obits, I can think of only one or two from the 20th century where it was not held decisive--even for socialites without any particular accomplishments."  Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I thought that was pretty clear, but maybe User:DGG will clarify.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: give it a rest. I usually wouldn't mention it, but if there ever was a textbook example of WP:BLUDGEON, this would be it.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, your fifth post here was to complain that an editor who had made three posts was bludgeoning.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your math is a little off, this would be my fifth post since the opening. You had six prior to my last post. Stating that you dispute every single comment that everyone makes here really is not the way to go. --Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with my math, I just checked it.  Do you want me to list the times of each edit so you can verify?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can do whatever you want, I'm not going to waste my time with this. You must have some special wikilawyer way of counting.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyer counting?  I'm wondering if that might be like if someone on their sixth post said, "this would be my fifth post since the opening": i.e., 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That no more than one or two people with editorial obits in the NYT from the 20th century is not opinion. It's a fact, to the best of my knowledge. (If I'm wrong, it can be disproven) That we should continue doing what we have almost always done -- that's an opinion. I think it's a more reasonable opinion than that we should ignore what we have almost always done. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--I do not concur that obit(s) in sig. sources lends auto-notability.Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just not notable and fails WP:POLITICIAN. It is a "big push" that being listed in a NYT obit (or AP obit) confers, or is even "a strong indicator", of notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:13, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberlands–Union football rivalry[edit]

Cumberlands–Union football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Same editor. No independent RS to establish notability. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sources provided in the article are unimpressive for WP:GNG. Looks like some rich history, so if sources can be drummed up I'd switch my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional sources look better. Still room for expansion, but a good start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The statement of the nomination that The Times-Tribune (Corbin), News Journal (Kentucky), and WYMT-TV are not independent is erroneous, as independence is a matter of journalist ethics.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Were added after nom. [15] UW Dawgs (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  In the article, we have independent coverage from three media sources.  One is a daily newspaper in Corbin, one is a weekly newspaper in Corbin, and one is a TV station in Hazard.  The weekly newspaper article is authored by a staff writer, the daily newspaper uses an article written by Union College's Director of Sports Communications and is marked "© Copyright 2018 thetimestribune.com", and the TV station article suggests indirectly that the article "reflect[s] the views of this station".  These sources all strongly confirm the credible idea that two small colleges in Southeast Kentucky have a football rivalry, one that dates back to 1905, and that the Brass Lantern is the symbol of the rivalry.  Evidence includes the headline writer who wrote, "Patriots rally to win coveted Brass Lantern".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The timestribune article reports a rare way to score in football, "However, the PAT was missed and [a] Cumberlands’ [player] picked up the loose ball, returning it 100 yards for a 2-point, defensive PAT..."  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I googled the trophy and the rivalry, and can't find anything besides school coverage, and single game coverage - certainly nothing beyond local coverage. There's no significant coverage on the rivalry, thus failing WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your definition of GNG's local coverage?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if something is notable enough for inclusion, there's media coverage outside of the local area. Otherwise, the rivalry is of just local interest. It's not the best comparison, but look at how something like Army Navy gets strong national coverage every year. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- It would take a lot to make a rivalry between NAIA schools notable, we're not talking about top-tier athletic programs. I just can't see this being any more notable than the local high school rivalry game.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question why would it take "more" for a smaller school rivalry than a larger school? Shouldn't it be "the same" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". The independent sources identified so far basically take about a recent game, with little background on the overall significance. Without more, editors will have little choice but to do WP:OR of sorts to cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games. "Local coverage" is not as issue for me; it's the limited number of independent sources. A rivalry from say California or Texas would likely generate more in-state, independent coverage than a series from Idaho.—Bagumba (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient significant coverage has been presented to pass WP:GNG. This is a rivalry among two NAIA teams, i.e., teams that play at the lowest level of college football (below NCAA Divisions I (FBS and FCS), II, and III. Moreover, the coverage is minimal and hyper-local -- small town coverage in Hazard and Corbin -- and not even much of that. If the rivalry were significant, one would expect at a minimum to see coverage in the major Kentucky or Tennessee newspapers like The Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald-Leader, Knoxville News Sentinel, or The Tennessean. If additional significant coverage were to be found, I'd be willing to take another look. Cbl62 (talk) 17:57, 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. Cbl62 has presented multiple independent sources that discuss the rivalry; the SNG WP:NRIVALRY defers to GNG. There's no requirement that there be coverage from sources outside the state of Idaho, which is the main delete argument presented. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho–Idaho State football rivalry[edit]

Idaho–Idaho State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another creation of same editor. No independent citations to establish a rivalry, just marketing from official sites and game results. Establishment of games results alone from a series is not sufficient for WP:GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Independent source added 12/30/17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Byline is "By ISU Sports Information Sep 6, 2017" [16]; So is not independent and still fails WP:GNG (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.). UW Dawgs (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Several objective indicia of a rivalry are present, including geographic proximity (this is an intra-state rivalry); an official name for the series ("Battle of the Domes", see here); a traveling trophy (see here); history dating back to 1916; and frequency of play (played regularly from 1962-1998, less frequently before and after, but set to be renewed starting in 2018). Also, there is some coverage of the series as a rivalry, including (1) this from 1967 ("renewing for the seventh time a rivalry that was born back in 1916"); (2) this from 1975 ("the ISU-Idaho rivalry has an emotional history"); (3) this from 1976 ("Vandals, Bengals Stoke Fires in Time-Tested Rivalry"); (4) this from 2017 ("Bengals, Vandals to begin Battle of the Domes yearly rivalry series"); and (5) this from 2017 ("Bengals and Vandals Unveil New Rivalry Series, 'Battle of the Domes'"). Not a slam dunk but overall, I think there's enough to pass the WP:GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see Idaho State Journal and Idaho Free Press as independent sources that mention the rivalry. The others you listed are non-independent.—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first four items are from those independent sources. The fifth may or may not be independent, but is significant for its discussion of the renewal of the rivalry with a conscious effort to brand and market it under the name "Battle of the Domes". Even if the fifth is not independent, we still have significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, thus enough to pass WP:GNG. Clearly not a slam dunk but enough. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in-state rivalries of state schools are almost always notable. This is somewhat unique that Idaho State is FCS and Idaho is FBS... but the history still holds up. Notability cannot be lost.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if the rivalry was notable beyond a local level, there would be coverage outside of Idaho. My rule of thumb is that without broader coverage, the case can't be made that this rivalry is anything more than of local interest. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I can't see this being of interest to anyone outside of Idaho. Coverage doesn't appear to make this a significant rivalry.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Whether it has attracted coverage outside of the local area is irrelevant - that's not how we judge the notability of articles. Here, there appear to be multiple RS third-party newspapers within the state of Idaho that have covered this series as a rivalry over a 50-year period. And, that's enough to meet GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. "Local coverage" is not as issue for me; its the limited number of independent sources. A rivalry from say California or Texas would likely generate more in-state, independent coverage than a series from Idaho.—Bagumba (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources listed above, additional sources are found at Newslibrary.com. These include: (6) "The Rivalry? New players, coaches and a 1", Post Register (Idaho Falls, ID), September 11, 1997 ("There will be no bonfires, no mayoral bets, no side of ham that might be Fed-Exed from the Gate City to Moscow, or vice versa. Ask Idaho State coach Tom Walsh about the Idaho/Idaho State football rivalry, which plays for the 35th time at 4:05 p.m. Saturday, and he's too busy thumping the tub for a win, any win, to worry only about the black and yellow Vandals."); (7) "Return of the Vandals", Post Register, April 4, 1997 ("It took some finagling, but Idaho State Athletic Director Irv Cross and Idaho Athletic Director Oval Jaynes have rebuilt one of the state's best football rivalries."). We now have significant coverage of the rivalry in at least three independent, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digging through Newspaperarchive.com, there are actually dozens more articles discussing this series as a traditional rivalry. Here are a few more examples: (8) Bengals Host Vandals In Big 'Game of the Year', Idaho State Journal, Nov. 11, 1963 ("The moment of truth comes next Saturday for fans of Idaho and Idaho State when the two football powers clash at Pocatello in what is fast becoming a major in-state rivalry."); (9) Bengals Seek to Break Vandals Hex in Big Sky Football Opener, Idaho State Journal, Sep. 26, 1969 ("Idaho State will be meeting its biggest rival in football Saturday, the Idaho Vandals ... grudge match ..."); (10) Idaho State Too Much for Vandals, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, Oct. 4, 1970 ("The traditional rivalry, played before a capacity crowd at the ISU Minidome in Pocatello ..."); (11) ISU-Idaho is old home week, Idaho Free Press, Oct. 4, 1974 ("It's a traditional rivalry ..."); (12) Idaho-ISU game is Big Sky feature, Great Falls Tribune, Oct. 26, 1985 ("There's no question it's the biggest game of the year." ... It's an in-state rivalry ..."); (13) Idaho-ISU Grid Rivalry Fails to Stir Bengals, Idaho State Journal, Oct. 7, 1977 ("Ah, rivals. There's nothing quite like them. Take the Idaho State Bengals and their annual donnybrook with the Idaho Vandals ..."); (14) Emotions high in Idaho-ISU battle, The Idaho Free Press, Sept. 25, 1975 ("Idaho and Idaho State renew the oldest intra-state college football rivalry in Idaho ..."); (15) On the Sidelines, Idaho State Journal, Nov 7, 1965 (referring to ISU-Idaho as "the arch-rivalry"). Sources from the 1980s and 1990s have been hard to find, as the key Idaho newspapers do not appear on Newspapers.com for those decades, but we now have at least six independent sources dealing with the series as a traditional rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kumar Kamboj[edit]

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

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

An advertorially toned BLP on a nn politician and member of a city council. Significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources, which include passing mentions, blogs, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:NPOL; the only interesting aspect of the subject's career is that he's the first politician of Indian descent elected to the council in question. However, I don't believe that this rises to the level of encyclopedic notability. Created by Special:Contributions/Farhanramzan123 currently indef blocked as part of a sock farm; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hamzaramzan123. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kumar is well known in the Indian community Germany for his social and political achievements. He is also the first Counsillor in the history of Indian Diaspora. In Germany his Surname is only Kumar not Kamboj. For seachresults in other Databases look for "Rahul Kumar Kelsterbach". I think its not fair to delete, request for more time. Other examples Raveesh Kumar, Anant Kumar, Gujjula Ravindra Reddy. GoPro (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC) — GoPro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Page created on 18 December 2017‎. Many other users also accept the relevance of this Page like myself. Its the first time that an Overseas Citizenship of India is elected as Official state Member in Germany. Its a proud moment for India with more then 1.339.180.000 Citizens. The relavence is available.(Find Sources: Google News, Google Search, HightBeam, the pioneer 5.146.101.88 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable politician and purely advert. Fails WP:NPOL. Hagennos (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:NPOL; Nevertheless Point Nr. 2 fit here. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". First Indian and also the youngest ever as Counsillor. 2003:C5:F1A:E10B:95DB:1696:14D0:7B8F (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• save page I believe the relevance is present. Have a look to the German Press reports. DGIM (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — DGIM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Correction I am (de-German) User since 2007 and also made many fixes on other pages. DGIM (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with GoPro; example Raveesh Kumar is also present here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:178:7B80:69C5:71BB:9FBC:52A4 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relevance accepted In Germany Counsillor (Stadtrat) is equal to vice Mayor. Approximately 700.000 People living in Frankfurt and 20.000 in Kelsterbach near the international Airport (FRA). Kumar is district level FDP Board Member of state (Kreis) Gross-Gerau with more then 260.000 citizens. At this time he is the youngest (with Indian background) president of the Social Association VdK Kelsterbach in the histroy and entire federal territory. The non-profit organization counts around 1.8 million members throughout Germany. In short time (from 2016) he achieved much recognition from German and Indian community. Its just demotivating to delete this efforts. I think to provide more time to updte the articel is a motivating way. 84.188.133.129 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I don't know much about German politics, but this guy is basically a city councilman, right? If so, he clearly would not pass WP:NPOL--Rusf10 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Basically you maybe right but 1. he is the first Indian 2. he also district level politician 3. he is the first and yougest president of Social Orgabisation VDK; according to WP:NPOL he received much popularity in the Indian and German News/Press. To say or fix just only a city politician is wrong. DGIM (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom's comment -- the subject being the first to achieve this position does not matter if the sources do not amount to WP:SIGCOV. At the end of the day, the article has been created by a promotional sock farm in violation of TOU and should be deleted per WP:DENY. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur with nom.Winged Blades^Godric 06:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "First person from **insert country** to hold the position of **insert role in local politics**" does not equate to notability. Furthermore, the article was created by a sock. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:21, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Vatatzeia[edit]

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

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

Per previous PROD, and my comments at an identical draft. This article is an egregious case of WP:OR. It mixes up a number of things---the (real) religious veneration of Vatatzes, as indicated in his article; the celebration of festivals of pagan origin at his court in the 13th century; a modern festival organized by the local see of Didymoteicho; spurious claims that this was celebrated by Greek emigrants to the US (no mention of such in the sources provided); and a completely invented name , "Ioannis Vatatzeia", that does not and could not exist in Greek, as it is completely ungrammatical---all tenuously related, and suggests a coherent narrative where there is none. The same information is already contained in the article on Vatatzes, in a more factual context. The accounts associated with these articles (User:LilaDelany and lately User:Yiayiasonny) are also suspect, as they appear to be typical WP:SPA. Constantine ✍ 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, the title is absurd; makes no sense in Greek, as already observed. It is not "Iωάννης Βατάτζεια" (Ioannis Vatatzeia), but just "Βατάτζεια" (Vatatzeia), meaning in Greek "about/in honor of Vatatzis". His name "Iωάννης" (Ioannis) cannot be added to "Βατάτζεια" (Vatatzeia), this is not proper Greek; cf this article about "Βατάτζεια 2015" @ ThakiToday.com. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that a SPI has found that all accounts involved in the articles linked to this topic and promoting this topic are the socks. This speaks as to the reliability and intentions of the article creator(s). If this ends in deletion, Draft:Ioannis Vatatzeia Draft should be included as well. Constantine ✍ 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It already exists the well documented article John III Doukas Vatatzes on him, where there is a "Legacy" section as well, including information about those who looked back upon him as "the Father of the Greeks", and his feast day at Didymoteicho. ——Chalk19 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Olav Karlsen[edit]

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

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

The article has been around for a long time, but the subject's notability has not been lasting, more like one-eventish stemming from his participation on a reality show. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is this the president of the Oljeberget, the Norwegian national football team supporters club? He seems get in the news regularly if it's all the same Lars Olav Karlsen. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: reality show contestant, works as a guide at the football museum at Ullevaal Stadion, but searches for sources suggest he does not meet WP:BASIC. Delete per policy. Sam Sailor 00:52, 16 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. Probably a BLPProd in its current state with IMDB being the only source. Fenix down (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Reese[edit]

John L. Reese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:Notability, self-promotion, and lack of reliable sources. The article is almost entirely written by what appears to be the subject himself, although he hasn't disclosed this. Surachit (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is clearly promotional and a possible WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY with only two sources, both of which offer only fleeting mentions and one of which is of questionable reliability. As per John Pack Lambert, WP is not LinkedIn. Chetsford (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete found this [17] where he organised some music festival and charity show in California; however it does not meet WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Nationalism[edit]

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

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

The article appears to be about a made-up subject. There is no evidence "Libertarian Nationalism" has academic recognition as an actual topic. Sources used appear to be blogs. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was about to nominate it for AfD myself but FreeKnowledgeCreator beat me to it. The topic fails to meet WP:GNG. I went through the article's sources and the article is primarily an aggregation of content from non-reliable sources, opinion pieces or sources that aren't actually about the article topic but contain the words "libertarian" and "nationalism" somewhere in the text. I also tried to find sources myself and did not find any. OK, let's go through the sources cited one at a time:
  • zerothposition.com - Not a reliable source.
  • beinglibertarian.com - Not a reliable source.
  • dbknews.com - Opinion piece from student newspaper. Although the words "libertarian" and "nationalism" are found in the op-ed, it's not actually about "libertarian nationalism".
  • washingtonpost.com - Again, it contains the words "libertarian" and "nationalist" but nothing about "libertarian nationalism".
  • mises.org - Not a reliable source.
  • anarchistnotebook.com Not a reliable source.
  • radicalcapitalist.org - Not a reliable source.
  • merionwest.com - Opinion piece from a questionable source. It contains the words "libertarian" and "nationalist" but not about "libertarian nationalism" except perhaps passing mention in one sentence.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly "speedy" -- WP:OR & WP:ADVOCACY, as in: "...a subset of the political far-right and libertarian party who are proud of their roots and of their heritage", stated in Wikipedia voice. Analysis of sources above is compelling to illustrate that this article is inapproproate synthesis on a nn topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Removed sources marked questionable and posted additional sources.

Dpezzin (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to be a fairly glaring case of WP:OR. The sources (those that are RS, anyway) fail to describe this in anything other than a type of convenience description. Chetsford (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from OR, this seems to be a POV fork of libertarian conservatism. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille Fuchs[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:PROF. A search for secondary sources to support notability was not fruitful. Many of the links in the article link to the landing pages of major websites, where nothing is written about this person. None of this author's published works appear notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please consider that she could be sorted by the name "Lucy Fuchs" for instance: on Google Scholar Holzywood (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete total and complete failure of meeting academic notability guidelines. The Google scholar link provides nothing even close to enough citations to suggest we might have someone with notable impact in a discipline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree...seems to be archetypical "average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Please consider the multiple aspects of the persona, not only the academic background Holzywood (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, but "multiple aspects of the persona" doesn't mean anything in the context of this discussion. A motion has been made to delete this article based on lack of notability. The article will only be kept if this concern can be addressed. Agricola44 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't seem to meet academic notability or general notability or any particular other guideline. To the extent that "multiple aspects of the persona" has a meaning, it would be to use multiple notability guidelines. Does the proponent wish to offer one that we have overlooked? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable of you, but that's not what it means. It is special pleading and what it basically means is "I know this person is not notable, but she's really great and deserves an article on WP, so please insert special plea here". There are gajillions of these "fanpage"-type articles on WP and they're appearing faster all the time. Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The author/proponent is a single-purpose account. Are they a family member, or being paid by the subject? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope boss. Just a fan Holzywood (talk) 15:11, 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. While the article as it stood when nominated may have failed WP:GNG at face value, the current version clearly passes all notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Horsburgh[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability as per WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG, no significant coverage of subject. Montgomery15 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete working for the BBC to produce web-content is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not be silly. Being a sport world champion certainly is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced fanpage with no convincing claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As noted there is nothing to suggest notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. Do WP:BEFORE, properly. Anyone who !voted to delete this should recuse from AfD until they figure out how it actually works. It took less than ten seconds to find sufficient sourcing to prove notability, and the article already had enough before I did so, including RS for being a world champion! It took a few hours to completely overhaul the article, but worth the effort. This is not just a national champion in a sport (snooker), but a world champion in another (eightball pool), as well as a world champion runner-up in both snooker and English billiards. Not only that, she beat the eight-time reigning world champion for the world pool title, and the woman who would become the ten-time, record-breaking world champion after her for the national snooker one. Utterly remarkable for a non-full-time player. It's like being thrown into a cage with a tiger and a lion, armed with a pocket knife and emerging with two pelts and no serious wounds. PS: the national snooker victory came after she'd already give up pro snooker aspirations for pool. She won it as a afterthought, and just blew off the world championship because it didn't fit her BBC work schedule, despite having made it to the semi-finals last time. Badass.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: UK Ladies champion, as stated in the original source, and now seriously expanded to demonstrate unquestionable notability. PamD 09:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-sourced and passes WP:GNG by miles: not even remotely borderline. I have to wonder if the three offhand delete votes above are even reading the same article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Did not see the article before it was expanded, but this is yet another case of WP:BEFORE. Now it passes WP:GNG by a country mile. Edwardx (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sourcing. Am I the only one who notices the irony that Wikipedia is littered with one-line drive-by stubs, but a little starter well-done like this one gets slapped with AFD? — Maile (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Done the search and sources are out there. Pass nobility criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:51, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital agency[edit]

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

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

Probable WP:NOTDICTIONARY violation that serves as a helpful magnet for spam and advertising. !dave 19:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Dictionary definition written in marketspeak. Lacks substantial RS coverage. No encyclopedic content. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 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 redirect to Sebastian Bach. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bach 2: Basics[edit]

Bach 2: Basics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing to suggest this album is notable. Mattg82 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sebastian Bach. Seems an uncontroversial redirect, albums are commonly redirected if not independently notable. AfD isn't needed unless the redirect is reverted. --Michig (talk) 16:27, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine Vess[edit]

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

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur associated with nn entities or not holding positions of note. Significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, interviews, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. The section on "Philanthropy" is puffery including a statement about the subject holding a fundraiser at his house (that is not philanthropy). Likewise, the details of being a producer are misleading; in one example, the subject is listed as one of 12 or so producers on the film. Etc. Created by Special:Contributions/Mocmarc as part of an apparent promotional walled garden around the company StudyMode and its products. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin, or at least is not supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amandine Ohayon[edit]

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

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

Non-notable CEO who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Coverage of the subject is almost exclusive to Ohayon being named as the CEO of Pronovias, or with her announcing products when she worked for L'Oreal. Note that the article subject does not inherit the notability of the products she marketed nor the brands she worked for per WP:NOTINHERITED. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]