Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 12

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss melera (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)

Miss Melera has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. In the references given this mentions her in one sentence along with other DJs; this merely has a photo of her (she is not even mentioned in the article); this is a social media site for electronic music; and this like the second merely has a photo of Melera and doesn't even mention her. The article makes no claims of albums charting, being certified gold, or any other facet of WP:MUSIC. She may meet the criteria but this article isn't reflecting it. Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the coverage needed for WP:MUSICBIO. Agree with nom regarding article sources. Searching finds plenty of mentions in event performer lists. Best found was this event bio blurb. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National engineering challenge (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)

Although it sounds notable from the first sentence "...in 150 cities" this is in fact just a national academic competition like hundreds that happen all over the world all the time. Article - which also appears promotional for the Gate Academy - was mostly written by a COI editor and all the references are primary. There's not a lot out there in terms of references and many are to this which appears to be a different competition with the same name. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the independent coverage needed for WP:GNG. I did find articles like this which read like press release material. It's possible more is out there waiting to be found. There are other 'challenges' with that same name besides this one from India. Gab4gab (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 150 cities? No independent evidence exists. For a scientific endeavor, that is sketchy. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice for future recreation if further RS demonstrating GNG become available DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaar? (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)

Unreleased films only meet film notability if production is notable. This makes no mention of anything notable about production. Google search shows the meaning of the word and other previous films with this title, but no mention of an upcoming 2017 film. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NFILM and reasoning mentioned above. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreleased film fails WP:NFF. Nothing notable in production coverage found. Gab4gab (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a tweet by the lead actor, posing for an on-location selfie with co-actor Sonia Aggawal, dated March, 6 2017: https://twitter.com/iamlakshmirai/status/838997960906133505 The publicity has apparently been less so far.103.74.141.16 (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NFILM DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Berggruen Prize (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)

Duplicate page with more information Tomcohen05 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Duplicate of what? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, tentatively: I see that this article was created 12 May 2016 (see this early version with substantially the same material as had already appeared in the "Berggruen Philosophy Prize" section of the Berggruen Institute article. There is duplication, yes, e.g. listing all members of the awards committee, which should not be in two places. It may be reasonable for the material to be split out of the Institute article, and then its section should now be edited down. --doncram 02:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - assuming this is an annual prize (as it is intended to be), it is useful to have a page independent of the institution. If the prize was discontinued, it might makes sense to merge it back into the institute. But the institute's page is long enough that this seems like a nice thing to spin out, as it seems to me to satisfy WP:N. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, It seems to me that the Berggruen Prize has generated sufficient publicity and is notable enough to warrant its own page, and will certainly continue to each year it is warded. Tmnh07 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, This was a mistake deletion. I meant to delete the duplicate (but less robust) page Berggruen Prize. Tomcohen05 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For uncontentious matters, which I think is, you can merge the two articles together by following the merge instructions (Wikipedia:Merging) which are linked in the top of the Berggruen Prize article. Given that the notice intimating the merge has been on that article for several months, with no-one objecting, I doubt doing so now will prove to be an issue. An ordinary merge like this doesn't need a deletion discussion. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Thanks! I merged the two articles following the procedure on the link you shared.Tomcohen05 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcohen05 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and the coverage is not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article on a footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. The article is also written in a suspiciously promotional tone by an SPA who has suddenly reappeared after four months without editing to ask why it's being deleted. Was prodded, but removed by an IP without explanation. Number 57 20:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator has admitted to being "very close" to the subject. Number 57 22:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject definitely has a significant amount of coverage, the 9 sourced in the article plus many more online. The fact that most of them are not in English doesn't mean anything. To be fair well written and well cited. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Sampaloc milk tea poisoning (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 per WP:SENSATION, a minor isolated crime made it to a sensational news series by the local national media. Also fails WP:LASTING since there is no credible notable event arising from this incident. Like a nation-wide law enacted (not just proposed or filed) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plenty of good sources. coverage seems extensive. the article is ok. Overall it covers WP:COVERAGE.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because it seems to lack ongoing coverage and because the fact that "Manila prosecutor clears milk tea poison suspect " [1] raises BLP issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There are still ongoing concerns with the rampant sale of oxalic acid in Manila, the same poisonous chemical compound that was the cause of the deaths two years ago.12--RioHondo (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. Not everything newsworthy is encyclopedic. No need to have a whole separate article about an alleged crime whose charges have been dismissed, with no WP:LASTING effect. We can put a small amount of content reflecting the concerns about rampant sales of oxalic acid in manila into oxalic acid#Toxicity and safety. Something like, "in 2015, a case of apparent poisoning by oxalic acid raised concerns in Manlila about unrestricted sales of the compound, however, no laws were passed or changed as a followup and the charges in the case were dismissed".ref There are concerns about lots of things, but it doesn't mean we need a separate article on any incident that is related to those concerns. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not even a major crime in that barangay; it was totally run of the mill. I have been there -- to visit my partner's family for Pasko -- and this was not even a topic of discussion compared to other crimes in the area. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qublix games (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)

Small game company with no evidence of meeting WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2017 (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/2017 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are just some quick links i was able to find. A leading gaming company that works with major players in the industry cannot be called small: http://www.adweek.com/digital/qublix-launches-candy-bubble-rush-on-facebook/ https://www.aol.com/article/2012/06/30/jewel-journey-facebook-review/20269716/ https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=forest+rescue+game https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=qublix+poker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscpop (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merely "work[ing] with major players" is irrelevant, since "basking in someone else's reflected glory" isn't a notability standard. --Calton | Talk 02:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos on the games that they've made do not establish notability. Read WP:GNG. The topic needs significant coverage from reliable independent sources and it doesn't have that. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is literally a directory listing, and the only reference is a Facebook company press notice that one of the company's games was one of 23 "top Facebook games of 2013". --Calton | Talk 02:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable company. Topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Not a single reliable source at WP:VG/RS has an article discussing the company in depth. There's just a handful of passing mentions of their games. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc Festival (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, no sources found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a source, one reference, on it. May be RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These articles are all on the first few pages of Google results. It's clear that the subject meets WP:GNG, at the least.  Gongshow   talk 02:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gongshow: And dumping the sources here in the AFD will magically made them add themselves to the article, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your review of the article prior to your last comment appears to be as thorough as your Google search prior to nomination.  Gongshow   talk 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notability has been shown and the references were added to the article. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gongshow, who has shown the article topic clearly meets GNG - whether the sources are added or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep subjects passes GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't think this is notable enough for a stand alone article. I'll admit that I'm not good at finding things, but there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I suggest we delete this article and merge anything with here with encyclopedic value into other articles. TheDracologist (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OR. Sounds like an essay. South Nashua (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Specifically which part(s) is/are OR? I see a lot of sources here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (probably) - I'm seeing a lot of coverage of this concept that would seem to justify inclusion somewhere. As I'm not seeing a logical merge target, it seems like a keep is probable. Guardian, Wired, Boing Boing, The Conversation, Frankfurter Allgemeine, RT, Huffington Post... just the first couple pages of ghits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Rhododendrites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim System (talk • contribs) 00:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - definitely sufficient WP:RS. --Fixuture (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I noted on the talk page of the article that I felt that there was over-emphasis on the particular term, "surveillance capitalism". This term refers to a concept which developed after about 2000, so there is not yet one name for it, but "surveillance capitalism" is one term for describing the concept. The concept itself is discussed in various places. For example, in Tim Wu's Attention Merchants he talks about companies watching what everyone does and selling both the public's attention and detailed information about audiences. I would not object to a name change for this concept if consensus found that another term fit better with the available sources. For example, "Selling of mass surveillance data" might be a more general name for this, or "Commercial capture of surveillance data", or "Mass surveillance data as an asset". The Zuboff theory itself could probably be notable as a stand-alone article, but right how, the content of this Wikipedia article is covering a broader concept which I also think is well covered by the cited sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see a number of mentions of this term in scholarly sources ([2]). Seems to meet GNG. The nominator should use Google Scholar and Books before nominating academic topics.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a thing, it's being talked about, and even films are being made on it. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist 04:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer Maggot (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)

Very surprised this exists as an independent article and has since 2005. Incredibly minor character from an important novel with slightly less minor appearance in a much less famous work by the same author. I don't doubt that, given the amount of scholarship on Tolkien's work, a lot of critical work has covered this character, but it seems incredibly arbitrary that Farmer Maggot gets a standalone article while Durin's Bane is consigned to a list within an article on its species -- maybe create Hobbit#Individual hobbits? While my experience with Wikipedia's coverage of Game of Thrones characters made finding this article a breath of fresh air (how rare it is that English Wikipedia includes an article on an obscure literary character who specifically wasn't played up in a popular screen adaptation and thus wasn't covered extensively in celebrity gossip mags and the like), I seriously think this article might be pushing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough call but I would argue for keeping the standalone article. There are several scholarly works that have analysed this character and like Durin's Bane, Maggot has been the subject of professional Tolkien art. In the end it is the combination of reliable sources that makes one article worth of keeping while another one may get redirected. On that note, Durin's Bane used to be a standalone article too but apparently it was redirected to the main Balrog page because it didn't contain any sources at all and consisted more or less of in-universe content.

Anyhow, should there be consensus to not have a full article on Farmer Maggot, the page should not be deleted but merged into List of Hobbits. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not favor deleting articles that are more than stubs and that are well sourced. Pages are not a scarce resource to compete for. If some other equally worthy subject does not have its own page, then to me, that justifies writing another page rather than deleting or consolidating what already exists. I don't support keeping arbitrary trivia within articles, and, sure, the whole article in this case might be argued to be trivia. However, given the subject's mention in scholarly works and its portrayal in popular culture, I don't think that argument is likely to succeed. This is not to say that the article is particularly good as written. It's not, but it's also not merely dreck. Strebe (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) 17:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Maggot is covered in an astonishing number of books, and in some detail in several of them, surely raising him well above the GNG's threshold. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I am sympathetic to the "merge" case made above, and am not that bothered about this either way, but you must understand that GNG is a minimum threshold. The most important part of WP:GNG, which seems to be missed virtually every time the guideline is invoked in AFD discussions, is A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I didn't invoke GNG as a deletion rationale (in fact I specifically said that I don't doubt that, given the amount of scholarship on Tolkien's work, a lot of critical work has covered this character, but it seems incredibly arbitrary that [this fictional character should get a standalone article]. Sorry to nitpick, but this is one of my pet peeves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Notability is judged by passing the GNG and more specialised policies in some cases. There's nothing indiscriminate about an article on a well-known and much-loved character discussed in 1,330 books. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right to say that [n]otability is judged by passing the GNG and more specialised policies in some cases, but notability isn't the only thing determining what topics have standalone articles on Wikipedia. I would love to see some of the 1,330 books discussing the character in-depth. At present the article cites Chance's monograph as saying something that would probably be more at home in our article on Frodo Baggins (that's the context in which she writes it), Dickerson's article (which I admit I haven't read) as saying something about hobbit society (on which we already have a separate article), two illustrations of the character by famous artists who have probably collectively painted hundreds of named characters in Tolkien's legendarium and which are unreliable sources for just about anything we could say about the character other than that they were painted by Artist X on Date Y, and a couple of fictional books by Tolkien himself. I'm assuming your 1,330 estimate comes from GBooks, but as usual GBooks seems to be playing mind-games with me because I'm only seeing about 60 hits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google-fu is weak! Anyhow, I just added some more analysis on the published Maggot and his early development. De728631 (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of hobbits. If there were a List of minor Lord of the Rings characters article, that would work too. There's certainly academic discussion that mentions Maggot, but almost everything I can find discusses him in the context of his effect on Frodo. The most detailed seems to be Atherton's discussion, which talks about prior versions of the character. It's marginal, but I think everything that needs to be said would fit into a list article. I also don't think it particularly helps the reader to have characters such as Ghân-buri-Ghân and Farmer Maggot separated into tiny articles; a single article is much useful to someone exploring the background of the book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GNG is met easily: check the 'books' part of the find sources link and ignore everything by Tolkien himself, and there's still plenty of commentary on the admittedly minor LotR character. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are some sources from cursory searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would opt to keep, NYT has an article on him as primary subject. The article just needs fleshing out more.Mark E (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a long career but no significant accomplishments. Copy includes trivia and appears to have been written by an editor closely connected to the subject (I'm not alleging that it was, but it reads as such). Not encyclopedically relevant, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Doyle (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 academic, tagged as such for nine years. While references have been added, it appears largely self-promotion. Ifnord (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I found some blog reviews of his books but nothing major and reliable enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His academic contributions do not rise to the level to pass academic notability, and his books have not recieved the coverage to pass the notability requirements for authors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Giri (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 does not have a single reliable source, and I was not able to find any. I previously blocked the creator per WP:COMPETENCE, and I have serious doubts they understand what reliable sources are. Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Would probably have qualified for Speedy Deletion per WP:G4. Ceosad (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google search provided no RSes. The last AfD was less than a year ago and nothing seems to have changed. It's clear that the subject is a singer and has videos online, but I can't find any sources that help subject meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is an important temple in U.S would need to be demonstrated by multiple independent sources - and not YouTube videos - to justify an article, alas Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Murugan Temple (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 but WP:ROUTINE coverage. The assertion that it is the oldest Hindu temple in the US could be a claim to notability, but no sourcing is there for that claim and I found none. No indication of any other historic or architectural significance. John from Idegon (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The informations i got about the temple is from their website. It may or may not be the first hindu temple in U.S. but only few temples of Hinduism are scattered over U.S.A, people can knew about them through Wikipedia. This is an important temple in U.S., eventhough it isnt first, it had attracted a large people of Hindus in U.S and had become one of the most famous temple in U.S. So it must be kept on. I am ready to give additional sources and expand it with truthful informations. Please wait until i fully finish the article.--wiki tamil 100 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided youtube videos related to the rituals celebrated here and expanded it. All try to expand and add reliable sources to the article. --wiki tamil 100 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is solely reliant on references from primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Found no significant coverage in reliable sources. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youtube videos showing rituals do not show its notability beyond that there is no third party coverageFORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is an unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. That aside, I'm not sure how helpful the minor term is, as "re(-)boiler" isn't mentioned at boiler. Perhaps a hatnote would be better off going to wikt:reboiler, where the term in that context is defined. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2nd entry doesn't meet MOS:DABMENTION, so I would vote no hatnote. However, even if the 2nd one was a valid entry, per twodabs we are still looking at a hatnote not a dab. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is an advertisement, not a valid encyclopedia article. The article starting at the section "Company culture" is pure fluff. Prior to that it relies on two Fox Business sources, by the same author. WP:CORP failure in the extreme. Unsurprisingly, it was created by a one-and-done editor with "SEO" in their name and expanded by another SPA. Bri (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Part advert and part vanity bio of its owner, for a not-really-notable company and minor entrepreneur. The Sundance stuff seems particularly irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a cut-and-paste move (copyright violation). I made a mistake correcting the move, but since the page history only consisted of the copyright violation I'll just leave it deleted, per WP:IAR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team-DkS (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 team, placed 11th in a non-notable tournament. GNG not met. I'd tag it for WP:A7 but the bar for that has been pushed lower than the Mariana Trench. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Team DK. This page might be a cut-and-paste move, I'm checking. At any rate there seems to be a group calling themselves "Team DkS" which is not related to the (organization?) covered in the sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team DK is China-based, Team-DkS is USA-based and originality-challenged. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article created and edited through manipulation of sock puppetry with notability inconclusive due to potentially forged sources Maineartists (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, reluctantly, as I'm openly trans and seek to increase and improve representation of trans people on Wikipedia. But sockpuppetry and dubious sourcing (see article talk page for details) is not the way to go about accomplishing this objective. Funcrunch (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if most of the apparently inflated claims in the article were verified, I believe the subject wouldn't meet notability guidelines. I'd love to be proven wrong. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article talk page is deleted with the page, assuming the AfD succeeds, no? As well as the sock-puppet investigation, the discussion on Draft talk:Jamie Weinand and Draft:Martin Edward Weinand, and also the publication (and subsequent citing and later deletion) of a press release citing this Wikipedia page should be mentioned here. Trankuility (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Guest reading article: this subject is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.117.242 (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be deleted by now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B07D:EF2D:95A7:231B:A68D:FCE9 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It takes 7 days from when the AfD was created to give the proper voting process to occur. There are 2 more days. Maineartists (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD debates can be closed earlier per WP:SNOW if there's overwhelming consensus, but with only five !votes (including the nominator) to date, I don't think that's applicable here. Funcrunch (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sign of notability. This almost seems it could be a candidate for deletion as a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KRID-LD (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)

Inadequately sourced article, from which I've had to strip some advertorially-leaning promotional nonsense ("first known superstation"...er, bulldroppings) about a low-power television station. WP:NMEDIA's base requirement for a television station to earn an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrated WP:GNG pass is that it actually originates at least a bit of its own original programming (i.e. a local newscast) -- but this station is licensed as a translator, for which there is no automatic presumption of notability. A station without at least a minimal amount of its own local programming can, of course, still build notability through the use of reliable sources that pass WP:GNG -- but there's no evidence of that being shown here, where the only "sources" are the standard media directory external links. This simply rebroadcasts a bunch of network feeds with no evidence of inserting even its own local commercials, let alone any actual local programming, so there's no automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough media coverage to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Stations that exist solely as full-time rebroadcasters of networks (or other stations) don't generally receive the presumed notability of broadcast stations unless there's something (preferably verifiable) to indicate the station has been anything more than that. Particularly for these types of low-power stations, you pretty much need more sourcing than the standard FCC and RabbitEars directory sourcing that establish that the station exists — and existence not only isn't notability, but also doesn't prove notability. As far as I can tell, KRID-LD simply doesn't have the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. (And I'd probably go so far as to say that any claim that a low-power station that signed on in 2014 is "the first known TV "Super Station" that broadcasts horizontally and vertically", when the term "superstation" has been around since at least the 1970s, is probably a red flag further establishing non-notability.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really nowhere to redirect to; station has no cable coverage, claims on website are plain bizarre (Newsmax being the "First dedicated News Network for households that have an antenna"; that network's business strategy is more over the Internet with the allowance to offer the network over-the-air). Usually I'm inclined to keep as an FCC-licensed station, but it seems like this is one of those 'run for fun' stations with no intention to do anything but clog the airwaves and being the 'leftovers' station in the market for declining networks like Retro TV and Heartland, and you can bet the moment H&I gets a full-power slot they're gone from this one. Nate • (chatter) 08:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avant Garden (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)

Finnish alternative rock band. Article lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Speedy deletion contested. 2 sources, Facebook and Tumblr. Mduvekot (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found http://www.rockeramagazine.com/mag/index.php/articles/music-reviews/music/item/1522-avant-garden-16-18 but that's not enough. The search for refs was hampered by the similarity of the band's name to several eating establishments and florists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Added all the references I could find — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kekkonensuperman (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even with these added references it still lacks significant, independent coverage. These are largely of the music blog/small press/social media variety: rockeramagazine.com has a link heading "submit your band," so take that for what it's worth. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Added two articles found on Finnish newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.15.187 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

created by the subject himself. I don't see he pass the WP notability criteria yet. Saqib (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Mentions in media are cases where he is not the subject of the piece, but is a contributor to the newspaper article/radio interview and is therefore not independent. The fact that this is an autobiography is another reason for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a "series" of books, only one of which has been published, not meeting our notability criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can not find any reliable third party sources discussing or reviewing this book at all. The only sources being used in the article currently are just the product page for the book on the publisher's website, and then links to the author's official website. Additional searches bring up nothing else. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searches turned up literally nothing meaningful to add reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't think this passes WP:NBIO. Pl wiki has a lot of footnotes, but mostly to crwodsourced Polish hip-hop encyclopedia, and as a semi-wiki it is about as reliable as IMDb (i.e. not really). Few paras in media like [3] don't seem to cut it. One of his albums briefly charted ([4]) but I doubt it is sufficient. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: In my opinion it does not pass WP:GNG for WP:BLP and does not add any value to the English Wikipedia. CSD under WP:A7, WP:A11 and WP:G11. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the one who deprodded the article. I only checked the Polish wikipedia article and saw that it used a number of sources, including the Anthology of Polish Rap [5]. Now I see that this book has a five-page entry about the subject. I don't feel I'm in a position to evaluate whether this is enough to pass WP:GNG (whether by itself or in conjunction with the media articles listed by the nom). – Uanfala (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in the absence of any further input, I guess my comment should be taken as a provisional keep !vote. – Uanfala (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing. Source found by User:Uanfala is reliable (published by pl:Narodowe Centrum Kultury) and in-depth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cherkasov Denis Vladimirovich (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)

CV of a businessman that fails WP:GNG. The claim to significance here is that he is the CEO of a subdivision of a larger company. Google returns a few hits in Russian, but they don't appear to be reliable sources. Article reads like it was created to promote the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You'd expect him to have a Russian wikipedia page if he were notable, no? Not. I couldn't find any significant sources. The sources in the article - aren't nearly enough. There might be Russian language sources out there (not as good in reaching those) -but they aren't cited in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shinz Stanz (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)

Contested WP:PROD tag. My original concern, which still stands, was

"Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO or of WP:GNG. The two references are broken links and I'm unable to find other reliable third-party sources on which we could build a decent article." Pichpich (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and when looking for reliable third party sources, nothing comes up that could be used. -- Dane ^talk 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Insufficient coverage available to satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Whilst it's claimed he had a "major hit" in Kenya & Uganda, I cannot find any evidence of this, so therefore also fails to meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just not finding evidence of meeting notability guidelines. Dlohcierekim 07:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• deleteThe only source I can find are his social media profile(s) and website and if we went by number of followers, that would certainly indicate a total lack of notability aside from the total absence of coverage. I'm pretty sure this qualifies for A7 since I don't see a CCS - claiming to have a hit without specifying what "a hit" is and the total lack of support means the C is lacking in CCS CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Arizona State Sun Devils women's basketball team (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 upcoming event template-like article by confirmed sock Lewisthebeaver. No secondary, independent sources. Mduvekot (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've placed a WP:G5 speedy delete tag on it accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pac-12 Conference Women's Basketball Tournament (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)

empty upcoming basketball tournament page, basically a template page for Pac-12 Conference Women's Basketball Tournaments by a sock of confirmed sockpuppet Dereks1x. Not likely to every be completed, has no sources. Mduvekot (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Danbury, Essex#Education. (non-admin closure) feminist 04:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcote School, Essex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no notability for this school that teaches children from ages 2 to 11. SL93 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Sounds like the sort of place that could be notable, but there is no evidence of it in the article and I could not find anything. The school was founded in 1935 according to its website so maybe someone has written about it since then.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Danbury, Essex, as nothing in the recent RfC affected this practice. As noted above, given the alumni claims and the fact that it has been around for a while, it could be notable, and a redirect to preserve the article's history makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Danbury, Essex#Education, a section I just created. I created this so long ago, I don't know the circumstances, but I couldn't find anytihng to confirm it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect. Striking my delete as I agree redirect makes more sense, as it certainly would be a {{R with possibilities}} in case someone has/finds enough to justify its existence.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting for the closer it would be {{R from school}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:ORG. The beginning sounds like an advertisement. SL93 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We would require accreditation before we start presuming notability for institutions like this. I can't seem to find any independent sources - there are hits for an unrelated seminary of the same name in South Africa, but not for this one. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of coverage in independent sources means that this organisation doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN -- In theory any college offering tertiary education ought to be notable, but I am dubious about one with just two faculty members. This appears to be an American college which is the seminary of a splinter denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - note that Heidelberg University (Ohio) was called Heidelberg Theological Seminary in the early 1900s according to newspapers.com, so if the article were kept (admittedly unlikely) a hatnote to that article might be appropriate. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep under criterion #1, nomination withdrawn and no arguments for deletion are outstanding. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I cannot find anything about this group, except for Boston car dealers. I'm assuming that the author is related to David, invented it, or is using this as a promo page. CSDs declined L3X1 (distant write) 13:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • NOM WITHDRAWN Notability has been established so page can be curated. Thanks David Eppstein. L3X1 (distant write) 01:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google scholar found four papers calling these things Leinster groups, none by Leinster himself (unsurprisingly — most mathematicians tend not to call things after themselves, preferring to let others do that). They include one where the subject is in the title, in a famous journal: Baishya, Sekhar Jyoti (2014), "Revisiting the Leinster groups", Comptes Rendus Mathématique, 352 (1): 1–6, doi:10.1016/j.crma.2013.11.009, MR 3150758. Another paper primarily on this exact topic (and mentioning the name in the abstract but not the title) is De Medts, Tom; Maróti, Attila (2013), "Perfect numbers and finite groups", Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico della Università di Padova, 129: 17–33, doi:10.4171/RSMUP/129-2, MR 3090628. A more detailed search of papers citing Leinster's unpublished preprint [6] found 11 of them. To me that meets the low bar of WP:GNG for topics of academic research: it is something studied in-depth and published in reliable sources by multiple independent groups of academics. By the way, we might also want to add some disambiguation: Google scholar also finds that "Leinster group" can refer to a group of mountains near Mount Leinster, a series of carved crosses in the high mountains of Ireland, a series of hot springs in Ireland, and a series of nickel sulfide deposits in Australia. Nominator should be warned to follow WP:AGF; the assumption that editors who create articles on obscure topics must be doing so out of self-promotion is a violation of this guideline. And who is David? The article creator is certainly not Tom Leinster, as he doesn't seem to have known that Leinster's paper was eventually published. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Refs seem to establish verifiability and at least minimum notability. See also WP:MANYTHINGS. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein. Also, the idea that the stub to which CSD tags were added was a promotional article strains credulity. --JBL (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSD criteria is usually never in perfect alighment. Creativity is sometimes needed. L3X1 (distant write) 01:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Eastern Jutland (Denmark) (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)

See WP:NRIVALRY; there is no evidence of this passing WP:GNG. The article is nothing more than original research and a synthesis of match stats. Also see WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 12:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Also consider these previous AfDs: Battle of Central Jutland and Battle of South-Eastern Jutland Spiderone 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was that comment meant for a different AfD? This one is about a rivalry, not a club.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was thanks, copied the wrong boilerplate rationale. Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Fails WP:GNG for a sports rivalry. This follows the same reason I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Central Jutland: Although the term 'ærkerivalen" (archrival) is used in news sources about matches between these 2 teams, my search of RS Danish news sources found no significant coverage about the rivalry itself nor any established use of the title "Battle of Eastern Jutland." In fact, Battle of Central/Eastern/Southeastern Jutland is used for matches among several Jutland soccer clubs. Without any specific significant coverage in reliable sources for this rivalry or term, the article fails WP:NRIVALRY. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to substantial independent coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate that WP:NARTIST is met. SmartSE (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanton2008 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC) I would strongly advise you to review the references about the artist.[reply]

• Comment - New References were added. Contributions for this article were provided by different users Tanton2008 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to satisfy the simplest of WP standards, lacks sufficient reliable, independent secondary sources.Cllgbksr (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Watauga Democrat and Mountain Times are reliable independent secondary sources, fyi. Tanton2008 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They look like small town circulations to me. Don't believe they satisfy - reliable sourcing. I'll let the populous decide.Cllgbksr (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User Cllgbksr comment makes me concern. It's against Wikipedia code to claim a small town newspaper is not a reliable source. Watauga Democrat started its circulation in 1888 and Mountain Times in 1978. Tanton2008 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I'm concerned that you believe there's such a thing as a "Wikipedia code", or that you misstate User:Cllgbks's objection regarding reliable sourcing. --Calton | Talk 04:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Calton You're right, there is no such thing as a Wikipedia code. I meant neutrality regarding the secondary sources. We can't subjectively sort secondary sources based on their circulation. Small town newspapers started last century and earned their place to be reliable news sources for local NC community. It looks like they were the first to write about the artist before The Village Voice did in 2000. -- Tanton2008 (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant neutrality regarding the secondary sources OK, now you're just using random words you pulled out of the guidelines. And yes, area of coverage -- not circulation, which is your projection -- is one of the many things used to assess sources.

... earned their place to be reliable news sources for local NC community Which, also, no one has questioned, so another straw man. So, to repeat, small-town hometown newspapers do NOT argue for global, national, or even regional notability, nor are they really acceptably reliable sources regarding things outside their circulation area, which you implicitly accept when you wrote "for local NC community". --Calton | Talk 00:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is a reference about the artist from The Village Voice Tanton2008 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor artist, and yes, small-town hometown newspapers do NOT argue for global, national, or even regional notability. See also the notability guidelines for creative people, which I'm not seeing as being met here. --Calton | Talk 04:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is a reference about the artist from The Village Voice Tanton2008 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article contains three secondary independent sources - Village Voice, Watauga Democrat and Mountain Times. Thus meets the basic criteria for notability WP:Basic -- Tanton2008 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I looked at the Village Voice WP page you reference and there is no mention of Anthony Coffee - that I can see. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cllgbksr The Artist last name - Coffey not Coffee, fyi -- Tanton2008 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Cllgbksr Could you please post a web link for the Village Voice WP page here? The correct reference - The Village Voice September 19, 2000,p. 99 (Paperback) -- Tanton2008 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do see Tanton2008 has voted "keep" twice on this page, so I know my eyes are working. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I edited the page to show only one vote from me. -- Tanton2008 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - small-town, locally-know artist. The "reference" to the Village Voice, even if we could understand it, apparently only attests that he took place in an exhibit in New York City. This does not constitute the substantive coverage of Coffey which is requisite for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Orange Mike Again, the view point is subjective instead of neutral. Small-town or big-town is a wrong approach. Instead, we should ask the following question - Are Mountain Times, Watauga Democrat and The Village Voice independent reliable sources? The answer is yes.

Wrong/irrelevant question. One more time: the issue is notability, and even if we accept your reframing it's still "no" because whether a source is considered "reliable" depends entirely on what it's a source FOR. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Tanton2008 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Small town coverage of artists is usually on the lines of human interest stories and not a clear showing of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The artist currently exhibits in New York City at Ward Nasse Gallery and had a solo exhibition in 2013 and numerous group shows. He has works in the private collection of Goldman Sacks and Cantor Fitzgerald -- Tanton2008 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in its article suggests the Ward Nasse Gallery has any sort of permanent collection nor that exhibiting there is any sort of marker of notability or recognition. And how do you know that this guy's work is owned by Goldman Sachs and/or Cantor Fitzgerald, and what difference would it make that a couple of financial firms needed stuff to hang on the walls of their meeting rooms, anyways? --Calton | Talk 13:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Barron's (newspaper) wrote about Ward-Nasse Gallery. The gallery has ben in SoHo NYC for more than 40 years. Regarding Anthony Coffey private collections, this information was published @ his website. -- Tanton2008 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The mere fact of Barron's publishing something about a gallery says little, if anything, about the gallery's notability or usefulness as a mark of recognition for any of the the artists that have displayed there, and even less about any particular artist. And the stuff about financial firms buying any of this guy's stuff is a) irrelevant to saying anything about his notability, status, and/or talent; and b) a CLAIM by the artist himself, so a primary source at best. Random name-dropping is NOT evidence of anything except attempts at resume-padding. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Can we merge this article into another article? It looks like everyone agrees there was a local coverage about the artist. (Watauga Democrat, Mountain Times) For example, merge it into Boone, North Carolina Or maybe convert the article into a stub in order to let it be expanded later? We have three independent sources about the artist - two local newspapers and one NYC newspaper at this point. -- Tanton2008 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert it to a stub? It IS a stub. And there isn't some sort of lower standard of notability for stubs. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @ Calton - please don't modify my comments or my vote. I specifically wrote vote "keep" next to my explanation why I think so. Tanton2008 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wrote "keep" twice, then put it in the wrong place. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Anthony Coffey has been exhibiting in New York's galleries for the past twenty years, which is why The Village Voice writes about him. In addition, primary sources confirm his acceptance within the New York's art scene. Over 20+ references found throughout the article speak for themselves. - CodeSlicer (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC) — CodeSlicer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• No, according to article references, the Village Voice has written ONCE about a group show he was in. And primary sources are neither marks of notability nor independent confirmation of anything other than existence. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The artist had group and solo exhibitions in NYC per references in the article. His artworks are in museums and private collections per references (web and paper). All this info in the article about him --Tanton2008 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you read a single thing I wrote? --Calton | Talk 04:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article references either lack independence or do not have sufficient breadth of readership (Denver Post) to substantiate a notability claim. I suspect that this article may have been written by someone such as a publisher or marketer (or the book's author?) with a COI, and the paucity of adequate references reflect this. Discussion of the book in independent reliable sources appears to be scarce. Book has won no literary awards and has not been reviewed in a major national newspaper. KDS4444 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444:But the Denver Post is an independent source, with information about the novels. The lunacon.org source is also independent and has information about the book's author. The novel spent 20 weeks on the Amazon Kindle Bestseller List too. SFrancis1608 (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lunacon.org identifies the author as one of several presenters at a conference— this is not the same thing as a published independent reliable source, it is only a conference web page with unknown readership and no evidence of editorial oversight; the Denver Post article is independent, yes, but as I already said, I don't think it has the breath of readership to indicate that the books it reviews are going to qualify as notable here on Wikipedia; lastly, having appeared on a bestseller list, while a good start, is not enough to support this notability claim: where was it on this list? Is it a list of fictional books sold or a list of all books sold? How long is the list? If the list is of 200 top fiction books, then being there for 20 weeks at position 187 starts to sound less convincing. If the book was truly notable, there should be ample discussion of it in the book reviews of multiple major national papers— I was not able to find any such discussion. KDS4444 (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: I read the rules for substantiating Wikipedia articles. There are five sources for the article and five external pages which back up what the article says. I have also quoted from these sources to ensure that the article remains valid.SFrancis1608 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444:The Denver Post picked up their story from Newsday's story on 2/13/2008, about it being one of the first Kindle books: circulation 437,000 Daily 495,000 Sunday. The book was top five on Kindle in action, adventure and war too SFrancis1608 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444:The Denver Post has a readership of 1.2 million. I think you should take a look at the Wikipedia page for the Denver Post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denver_Post, which will give you more information about how popular the series is. SFrancis1608 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444:I also have physical evidence that supports the validity of this article and the book series. Can we provide details of these sources as back up for a start? SFrancis1608 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. References include a wiki, an article with a one two sentence mention of this book, the web site of a company which promotes books on behalf of authors, the web site of a company selling the book, etc. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: But you're forgetting the Denver post article, which has a following of 1.2 million. The article is written in a neutral tone SFrancis1608 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. That was that article which I said had a one sentence mention of the book, though checking now I see that actually two of the five sentences about Ben Parris are about Wade of Aquitaine, so I am correcting my post above. However, by no stretch of the imagination is that substantial coverage. As for being "written in a neutral tone", that is totally irrelevant to what I wrote above, which was about lack of evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Could you let me know what is wrong with the article specifically? How can I fix it? SFrancis1608 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessarily a question of "fixing"— notability is something which either is or is not, not something which one can fix by changing the presentation of existing information. The book may become notable in the future— that is always a possibility. But that does not mean that there is evidence for its notability right now. KDS4444 (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: @JamesBWatson: If notability and substantial coverage vis a vis number of lines in a major paper is what you're concerned about, the entire Newsday story I cited--a full page-- was devoted to this article. SFrancis1608 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched the Newsday website (you did not provide a link) but could find no evidence of their having written a piece on this book, though even if I had, "Newsday" appears to be only a local Long Island publication. KDS4444 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Check that, I just did a second search and found the reference. It is titled "Cool2know", and here is the link. What I was not able to determine, however, without paying for access, is whether or not the article even mentions the book. The abstract does not, and the title does not suggest that it does. I am willing to grant (sight unseen) that the article does mention the book somewhere— that alone does not constitute substantive coverage of it. If the article were about the book, and if the article were published in a newspaper with broad circulation (I recant my previous assessment of the Denver Post, which likely does have readership breadth), and if there were at least two such articles in existence, a notability claim might stand. KDS4444 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this reads like a typical promo piece by somebody with strong affiliation with the books. No evidence that there is any significant notability here. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's limited evidence of notability. The book was self-published 9 years ago, and despite claims of initially being highly ranked on the Kindle, only has 22 reviews at this date. I put a delete vote on the author's article as well, since without the book being notable, there's not much else in the media coverage to suggest sufficient notability. Perhaps when the sequel comes out that will bring new interest in his work. Timtempleton (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alapanathile Thenum Vayambum (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)

Book gets zero hits on Google Books, and zero hits on Google News; a regular Google search turns up announcements of the launching of the book, which makes me think this article is basically promotional. No interlanguage links to verify a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if it was such a landmark then you'd expect at least some coverage Spiderone 12:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darksiders (series) (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 unnecessary and redundant article. There are two Darksiders games: Darksiders and Darksiders II. This article just rehashes the information on those two pages, without any new information or general overview of the series (which consists of two entries, so there's not much to go on either). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As stated, this page is unnecessary as the "series" only consists of two games, and all of the information here is just duplicative of the information already found on the two games' own articles. The only sources being used are the reviews of each game which, again, is already included on the pages for the individual games. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant since there are only two games in the series, and prospects for a third game are shaky at best.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The general consensus is that, at the very least, 3 titles would be required to warrant a series article. All info within this article is redundant to either entry it represents. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is little coverage discussing the series outside of the two individual games. Any coverage falls under the scope of those articles so this is a redundant content fork. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timilehin Bello (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)

Zazzysa (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Zazzysa (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zazzysa (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the subject of the article meets Wikipedia notability criteria. He is a renowned PR executive in Nigeria, whose clientele runs through majority of Nigeria's top celebrities and companies. Pflex (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is rude to put people's article up for deletion without any sensible deletion rationale. Typing fails GNG shouldn't be so difficult naa. That being said, article fails WP:NPERSON. the award won isn't notable. Many of the sources present fails Wp:RS. Biographies should be the most thorough of all our articles, everybody shouldn't have a wiki article on himself. Nothing special about this young man to warrant a wiki article. Darreg (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Darreg, this article fails WP:GNG.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fairy chess piece#H. redirects are cheap ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk (chess) (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 have WP:RSs to satisfy WP:Notability for a stand-alone article. --IHTS (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No acceptable sources or claims of notability; internet searches suggest that this is not just due to omission. --JBL (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brittle heaven (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fairy chess piece#Notable examples where it is already listed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the test for notability there? This piece is not notable enough for its own article; how should one determine if it's notable enough to be in that list? --JBL (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have to debate that here - it can be done at the talk page of the main article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Won't the discussion closer need to see basis for your !vote to redirect in order to evaluate the !vote? AFAIK the only published ref that exists is this, and said ref didn't exist prior to 16 Feb 2017. --IHTS (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redirects are cheap. Unless the Hawk is a complete hoax (which I don't think anyone has suggested) it's a plausible search term, so why not redirect? There could just be a brief mention there along the lines of, "lesser known examples include the hawk."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laragh Gala Variety Show (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)

Small local show in a town that (no kidding) has 60 residents, but for some reason doesn't qualify for A7. The current sources are literally the only sources. TimothyJosephWood 10:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nom is correct on all counts. We really have to wait a week? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I... yeah. TimothyJosephWood 10:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under the clause of WP:A7 that applies to "organised events". Exemplo347 (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I turned down the A7 because I could see a potentially convincing argument for a redirect to Laragh, County Cavan or Stradone, County Cavan, but nobody seems to be making it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No indication that subject meets WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Don't see case for redirect (as orphan - and likely to remain so). Guliolopez (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vet Tech Institute (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 a particularly significant run of the mill college. Tagged as unsourced for several years; I found one source showing some creditations, but nothing else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This site's hand-wringing A7 brigade long ago decided to turn Wikipedia into a free web hosting service. Deleting this ad would give the college's competitors an unfair commercial advantage.--Mkativerata (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merely being accredited is not a credible claim of significance, so WP:A7 could very easily apply. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for-profit educational institution that doesn't meet notability standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. It is obvious that this discussion will not result in consensus to delete. Editors remain free to discuss on the talk page whether to merge in content from the history of David Dao (now deleted and redirected to this article, but this is being contested at WP:DRV), or whether to merge part of this content into a more general article about people being forced off airplanes. Any renomination of this article should occur only after the coverage has died down somewhat and the long-term importance of the incident can be better assessed.  Sandstein  16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 3411 (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)

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}}.

No. Just... no. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING (and WP:NNEWS in general). This is an incident that has made headlines thanks to a few folks with cell phones and will probably be nonexistent in two months (though my money is a month). Regardless of my personal thoughts on its longevity, it is still TOOSOON to determine if it will have an impact and should be deleted until such time PERSISTENCE has been demonstrated. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep just...keep. Keep or merge. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because...? Primefac (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

front page of NYT and CNN right now, so just keep....just keep or merge cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it makes the front page doesn't mean we must have it. Take a gander at some of those policies I linked. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm just expressing an opinion as a guy who's been an editor for a while. It is obvious that you disagree with me. Leave it at that. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]