Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 15

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. czar 05:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederique Janssen (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:NSPORTS. The European Games are not a senior event (for swimming) but a junior championship. Fram (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. Among others article in De Telegraaf, a main Dutch news paper. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This one? A request to donate money to support her, because she may one day become notable. The main reason she gets some very limited attention is because she is the daughter of a famous sportsperson. And having said that, probably instead of deletion the better solution would be Redirect to Annemarie Verstappen (where she isn't even mentioned now, that's how notable Frederique at the moment is...). Fram (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - To her mother's page. This is a case of too soon; maybe she will become notable on her own merits but that is not the case yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I see no reason for a redirect based on WP:Too soon. – Editør (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable swimmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not Redirect - per nominator's rationale. Creating a redirect for non-notable people is pointless. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

fails WP:BIO. simply founding a company does not confer inherent notability. and the award "Australian EY Entrepreneur Of The Year" hardly adds to notability. also nominating his brother for similar reasons:

• Paul Bassat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

LibStar (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The award is notable but there's no other indication of evidence of notability, therefore fails WP:BIO. There is even less evidence for his brother's notability so that's a Delete also. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Struck the !vote above. There is ample evidence of notability in various books as pointed out by JimMillerJr below (and make sure you spell the name correctly!) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both Finding sources on these two is not difficult, but stitching it all together will take some effort. See here and here for the first couple I could find. I will continue to work on these as I have time. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOT applies given it's simply a business listing complete with the sources being business announcements, mentions and all similar; we would never compromise with accepting advertising even if someone "liked the article". SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a lack of substantial coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Hyland, Anne (2016-01-29). "Paul Bassat's journey from start-up whizz to venture capitalist". The Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

     The article notes:

     The future is where Paul Bassat says he lives too much. "The restless person thinks about the future, which is the mode I'm in," he says. "I'd like to be more in the present and less in the future."

     ...

     Bassat, a venture capitalist, was a co-founder of SEEK, the world's largest online employment business by market capitalisation. He created it with brother Andrew and friend Matthew Rockman, of the Rockmans women's fashion family, in 1997 – just two years after Amazon and eBay were born. Back then Bassat was a 29-year-old lawyer-turned-entrepreneur in awe of the possibilities of the internet. He had a cracker of an idea for a jobs website and set out on an exhausting adventure that eventually made him and others rich.

     ...

     Bassat left SEEK five years ago, stepping down as co-chief executive. Now he's one of the wealthy men who invests money with hungry entrepreneurs, who remind him of himself. But Bassat isn't just any venture capitalist; there are plenty of them. He's the best-networked venture capitalist in Australia, and the most influential.

     While not a household name, the 48-year-old co-founder of Square Peg Capital has the ear of the country's uber rich and politicians, among them the innovation-obsessed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. His clout stretches beyond these shores into Israel and Silicon Valley, the latter the command centre for global innovation. He can easily organise a meeting with global technology giants such as Tesla or Uber, or one of the world's biggest venture capital outfits, Andreessen Horowitz, which helped build Facebook.

     ...

     Bassat and wife Sharon, a former teacher, have three late-stage teenagers.

     Bassat and his two siblings, Andrew and Sally, all became lawyers. Only Sally, who lives in Israel, remains one. Bassat's mother, a Holocaust survivor who as a child emigrated from Poland, worked as a lawyer. His father, who was born in Egypt and came to Australia as a teenager, was an IBM executive. Bassat wasn't interested in technology as a kid; he liked books. And when the germ of an idea that would become SEEK came to him – while standing at a house auction in Melbourne in the 1990s – he had to use his father's computer for the research.

  2. Williams, Pamela (2013). Killing Fairfax: Packer, Murdoch and the Ultimate Revenge. Sydney: HarperCollins. ISBN 1460700171. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

     The book notes:

     The Bassat brothers, Paul and Andrew, and their friend Matthew Rockman had built SEEK from a daydream. By 2003, five years after its launch, it was a serious company, worth $100 million, driven by the boom in online advertising.

     ...

     Andrew Bassat was the prime joker; his brother Paul was deemed the adult supervision. How embarrassing if they turned up at Packer’s office and it was a SEEK practical joke. Finally they rang back to check, to find that James Packer did in fact want to meet them.

     ...

     Andrew Bassat, 31, was a management consultant at Booz Allen. He was not an internet user but they were both excited to find advertising already online. They would spend nearly six months creating a plan.

     The book extensively discusses Seek's founding and Paul and Andrew's role in the company's founding.
  3. Williams, Felicity (2012-06-12). "Bassat is a single-minded CEO". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

     The article notes:

     IF ANDREW Bassat is worried about flying solo, he certainly isn't showing it.

     The Seek chief executive will sit alone at the helm of the online job ads business when his brother and co-CEO Paul officially steps down on June 30 to pursue other interests.

     His departure marks the end of one of corporate Australia's best-known - and most formidable - family duos.

     But Mr Bassat appears determined not to slow down now he's a lone operator, as the months since his brother's resignation in October demonstrate.

     ...

     Seek was born in 1997 out of Paul's frustration with searching through newspaper classifieds for a house.

     Mr Bassat wasn't even an internet user then, but Paul's experience highlighted the potential of online ads to the brothers.

  4. Lindsay, Nicole (2010-10-14). "Paul Bassat seeks new direction". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

     The article notes:

     AFTER almost 13 years at the helm of job search website Seek, Paul Bassat has decided to throw in his own job.

     Mr Bassat's resignation takes effect from next July when his co-chief executive - brother Andrew Bassat - takes on the top job solo.

     Paul Bassat, 42, will then take a year off before rejoining the board as a non-executive director in 2012.

     But as for what he will be doing during his gap year, he still doesn't know.

     ...

     The corporate lawyer Bassat brothers and Matt Rockman started Seek in the late 1990s, backed with seed funding from Mr Rockman's hotelier father, Irvin Rockman.

  5. Martin, Rebecca (2014-12-14). "Seek a house, find a job". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

     The article notes:

     In 1997, Paul Bassat was trying to buy a house. Standing at an auction, completely frustrated by the process, he figured that there had to be a better way of finding a house than through the newspapers.

     His original idea was to develop an online real estate classifieds business.

     Paul, then 29, took the idea to his brother Andrew and they started researching the main classified markets - real estate, cars and employment. Deciding the employment classifieds market was the best option, they went, with business plan in hand, to look for funding.

     Melbourne businessman Matthew Rockman and his father Irvin, who were clients of Paul's in his previous career as a lawyer, loved the idea and fronted up the cash. Matthew also joined the team, heading up marketing and sales.

  6. Smith, Matthew (2014-07-21). "SEEK's Andrew Bassat takes aim at 'gutless' CEOs". The Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

     The article notes:

     Chief executives and executive boards are not doing enough to capture the growth opportunities at their doorstep, according to Andrew Bassat , co-founder and CEO of online jobs marketplace SEEK.

     Fear of the repercussions of failure among Australia’s corporate leaders could be the biggest barrier stopping companies and investors from capitalising on the growth associated with the rise of Asia’s middle class, Mr Bassat said.

     He added that short term-focused remuneration likely inhibits CEOs and executives from taking the risks required to get a foothold in the highly competitive and emerging growth region.

  7. Raz, Gali (2013-11-25). "Andrew Bassat Wins The EY Australian Entrepreneur Of The Year Award". Jewish Business News. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

     The article notes:

     Andrew Bassat graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of Melbourne as well as a Bachelor of Laws degree from Monash University. Andrew and went on to complete his MBA in Business Administration degree from Melbourne Business School.

     After completing his University education Bassat went to work as a solicitor at Corrs Chamber Westgarth one of Australia’s leading independent law practices, leaving them to become a management consultant in the Australian offices of Booz Allen & Hamilton, an American technology consulting firm. While he was with Booz Allen & Hamilton, Bassat found himself working on a wide and interesting range of strategic assignments in conjunction with some of the Australia’s leading corporations.

     Bassat left Booz Allen & Hamilton, to go into business with his brother Paul in September 1997 assuming the role of Executive Director of Seek Limited.

     When Paul left to form his own company in 2011 Andrew assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer of Seek Limited.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Andrew Bassat and Paul Bassat to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both – Per a review of available sources in online searches, both of these subjects meet WP:BASIC and qualify for standalone articles. However, another option is to merge the content to Seek Limited. See also: WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seek is pretty big company and these guys not only founded it but continue to run it (at least one of them anyway). And regardless of that, Cunard makes a very good case for them both meeting the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jiansheng Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A single event that is largely of local interest. Deletion nomination per WP:NOTNEWS. —Non-Dropframe _talk 04:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could find several mentions of the death in international media, but the lack of more than a passing mention just doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTE. It doesn't help that the article itself fails to specify any reasons for notability (such as any controversy that may have been caused by the cause of death). felixphew (talk | contribs) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused what a "passing mention" is. All of the articles I have seen are detailed articles with several paragraphs. A "passing mention" is when you have an article that lists the 12 people who were murdered in Virginia today and one of the 12 is Jiansheng Chen, with no further details. --B (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nomination and WP:ONEEVENT - Arjayay (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Sad event but no lasting notability or significance. AusLondonder (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article's original author left the following comment on the Wikipedia talk page rather than here in the discussion. —Non-Dropframe _talk 21:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting of Jiansheng Chen is a civil rights issue. What do you mean by "of local interest"? How much did the security guard company pay you to nominate the page for deletion? I'm y.j. (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm y.j. I think you might like to familiarise yourself with WP:NPA and WP:AGF before striking and apologising for those comments. AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an absurd accusation. Don't take things personally, its just that Wikipedia doesn't make an article for every single crime story on the news. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Jiansheng Chen and associated AFD. - GB fan 02:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. If we must document this somewhere, perhaps in an "Impact/effects of Pokemon Go section/article", but it doesn't require its own article, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: far from being "largely of local interest" this has been reported worldwide. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply to events. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the story has been picked up by CBS News and NBC News nationally. This seems to go well beyond a local news story. --B (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, People has the story now http://people.com/crime/security-guard-says-grandfather-ran-him-down/ --B (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with the other page "Jiansheng Chen". Thanks to another editor's help, I have plenty evidence of significant local coverage (the Virginian Pilot), national coverage (NBC, CBS [2][3]) and international coverage ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10]). This strongly suggests that the content deserves to be kept in one way or another. The victim was Chinese and spoke almost no English. That added more complexity to the seemingly odd killing by certain security force and is bringing more attention from national and international coverage. SlowSuperMom (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's international coverage for this. Not enough to support an individual article for the deceased person but definitely enough to support an article for the event. Exemplo347 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The amount of coverage alone is not enough to justify keeping the article. To justify keeping an article on an event, we need to establish some significance and impact. WP: NOTNEWS states "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."[emphasis added] What we have here is a typical crime news event which is used to fill air time and print copy because it is "odd" (to quote SlowSuperMom) but which is forgotten a week later because it has no real impact on anyone not directly involved, and because every week someone is shot in their bathtub or run over by drunken joyriders or permanently scarred by falling face first on a box of thumb tacks. Unusual deaths just aren't that unusual, and they certainly aren't notable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shooting was on January 26 and People wrote about it on February 7 ... so it hasn't been forgotten about in a week. --B (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "forgotten a week later" is a figure of speech; my meaning was not that such a news item is forgotten in the exact time span of a week, but that it is forgotten as soon as another news item comes along to replace it. An event being reported on 12 days after its occurrence is hardly an indication of lasting significance.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination and WP:NOTNEWS, not enough information to have it's own article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically routine news at this point. No evidence of lasting impact. Several of the SPA accounts involved in writing the article keeping saying it's "potentially" the next "Treyvon Martin", but there's no evidence of that. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Today (February 14), there was more news about it - [11][12][13] - three congressmen from the metro area issued a statement. There was also news yesterday about the change.org petition seeking "justice" in the case [14]. I don't claim this to be the next Trayvon Martin or any such thing - but I do claim that it meets our notability requirements. --B (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep or Merge to Pokémon Go § Criticism and incidents, which presently has no mention of this incident that has received national coverage in the U.S. (People, NBC News, CBS News) and in many other areas of the world ([15], [16], [17], [18]). The incident is recent, but has continued to received coverage in reliable sources right up to this very day (The Virginian Pilot, WTKR, The Roanoake Times, etc.) This suggests that this incident will continue to receive sustained coverage. At the very least, this can be merged per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'm opposed to any merger to Pokemon Go, which appears to be little more than a bait headline and not core to the shooting or its subsequent coverage. -- ferret (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an incident that occurred while a man was playing Pokémon Go and was shot to death doing so. This section of the Pokémon Go aricle also has similar content in it, about a person in Guatemala shot and killed while playing the game and another person accompanying the person who was shot in the foot. I view this as a valid merge relative to content already in the merge target. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how WP:ONEEVENT relates to events. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The event itself, while unfortunate, isn't notable per WP:NOTNEWS, and to the extent arguments have been made that the event is notable for the reason that the victim himself possessed one or more particular attributes (age, ethnicity, being a Pokémon Go player, etc.), I'd argue that WP:ONEEVENT applies as well. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm still more swayed by the ongoing international coverage, though. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is NOT just another "typical crime news event", rather it represents one of historical incidents where Chinese Americans continuously being systemically discriminated against. --Vincent_wk (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the evidence that anything about this case was racially motivated? - GB fan 23:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. No lasting notability. If this has impact on something else, then that's where it should be described. The other keep arguments seem to center on this being "widely reported", but that only fails WP:NOTNEWS. It may be used as source material, but that's not sufficient for a stand-alone article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: the rent-a-cop has been charged with murder [19][20]. I'm not sure that some who are citing WP:NOTNEWS have actually read what it says. I keep reading it over and I'm not seeing how this article violates it at all. Just because something is a news story does not automatically exclude it from coverage. Most events that happened in the last few hundred years and about which Wikipedia articles have been written were, in fact, covered in the news. We don't have articles about routine things like individual sporting events (unless they are famous in some way) or trivia like the Microsoft First Quarter 2017 Dividend or February 17, 2017 traffic accident on I-64 in Richmond, VA, but this doesn't seem to be trivial like that. The coverage of this shooting has continued for several weeks now and has been picked up by national and international media. I'm not sure why we're getting scared off just because it's also a news story. Yes, there are a lot of SPAs promoting this article, but I think it's worth taking a look on the merits. --B (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is really simple - the GNG has been met. Will people stop muddying the issues and read the GNG for themselves? This really isn't a difficult AfD discussion! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - No one said that being in the news excludes it from coverage on Wikipedia. The reason people are citing WP: NOTNEWS is because the article subject is a clear instance of something which is reported in the news but has no enduring significance.
  • Exemplo347 - You should take a look at WP: GNG yourself, as it clearly indicates that meeting the GNG is a necessary, not sufficient, criterion for having an article on a subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of things that NOTNEWS lists are wholly unrelated to the subject of this article - "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The idea is that we don't have articles on trivial junk just because there was a wedding announcement in the newspaper and we don't turn celebrities' articles into a tabloid-like list of their every day lives. It's not a prohibition on a news item being considered notable. And I think you're underselling WP:GNG. WP:GNG says that a topic is presumed suitable for an article if it meets the criterion. That's a much stronger statement than to just say that it's one of several requirements. The rebuttable presumption is that the topic is notable. We accept that we don't need articles about Justin Bieber's trip to the grocery store or my (assuming I'm a non-notable person) wedding or death - that's WP:NOTNEWS - but NOTNEWS is not a blanket prohibition on otherwise notable things that were covered in the news. --B (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, no one has said items reported in the news are banned from coverage, and creating straw man arguments for the opposition just demonstrates a lack of confidence in your position. Trying to construe "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" as "incontrovertibly suited for a stand-alone article, to the point where all other Wikipedia policies must be ignored" is a better effort, but frankly predictable, and completely undone by the fact that right in the lead section of WP: GNG it lists two necessary requirements for meriting an article. One is the GNG, the other is WP: NOT. Finally, claiming that this article doesn't fall under NOTNEWS because it's not listed among the specific examples is just weak.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm confused. On one hand is a guideline that says the topic is presumed to be notable. On the other hand, there is a policy that doesn't say anything to the contrary and gives examples that are wholly unrelated to the subject at hand. This article does not resemble any of the examples given in WP:NOTNEWS and you haven't explained how it does meet any of the rules in WP:NOTNEWS. Above, you quoted "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", but the very next sentence explains what "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" is talking about - "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". This is nothing like that. --B (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for now as per WP:RAPID. I was troubled by the fact that sources on the page are local (Note that WaPo is a regional paper) and the NBC stories are on NBC Asian. The anglophone Asian press, however, has picked this story up and run with it as though it is a race crime, although coverage I looked at does not support this. However, The AP now has this: "Security guard charged with murder in Chesapeake shooting", picked up by a local paper [[21]] Trial will bring out issues such as was the guard or the company that hired him negligent, and whether they is anything to the support the idea that victim was targeted because he was Asian. Suggest that we close as 'No consensus for now and revisit in 6 months. Trial may also clarify whether there is an appropriate merge target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Washington Post has covered this (search here: [22]), but only as local news. Not seeing that any national American publications have picked it up (except in Asian interest editions). Still thinking we should punt and revisit in 6 months.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a point of information, Washington DC is about 4-5 hours away from Chesapeake, depending on traffic. Chesapeake is not in the DC metro area and the Washington Post does not routinely cover "local news" from Chesapeake - see https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia/ for the Virginia counties they cover as "local" news - all of these are in Northern Virginia, whereas Chesapeake is in the Southeastern corner of the state. --B (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing is, the articles are clearly labeled "Local News" at the top of the page. Like other American big city dailies, the Washington Post covers nearby regions as local news, printing a different set of "Local News" in each of several regional editions. Stories about a "local" crime in Virginia (or a local election, a celebration, etc.) will not appear in the copies of the paper delivered in Maryland or in the District, and visa versa. Of course, everyone can see them online.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as appropriate The two things that keep this from being a tragic yet still routine everyday shooting are the reported but not quite flushed out Pokémon Go connection, and the fact that Mr. Chen was Chinese and didn't speak English. The best solution is to merge the info into any appropriate other articles. My rationale for a merge is how the article of school shootings in the US lists all the shootings, but you'll notice they don't all have their own articles, despite an amount for many similar to that for the Chen shooting. In Chen's case, the Pokemon connection is the strongest, because it explains why he was at the location where he was shot, and perhaps why his behavior may have seemed to be suspicious to the guard. The Chinese and non-English speaking angle only becomes significant (IMHO) if it can be shown that those attributes contributed to his being shot. Without any evidence of the shooter having a racist history, and even then, that connection is going to be very hard for any prosecutor to prove. Plus, even if it could be shown to be a factor, I can't find a niche US hate crime attacks article where a merge might work. I previously put the info about Mr. Chen in Pokémon_Go#Criticism_and_incidents but undid the revision when I realized I might be going against consensus, per the talk page. If the info does eventually wind up there, I'd redirect this article there. Timtempleton (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE. DrStrauss talk 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in WP:ROUTINE do you find "murder case that spawns a month of national news coverage"? Yesterday (February 23), NBC News (national) had another story about the case - [23]. (There have also been near daily stories in the local media for the locality where the shooting happened, as well as international Asian media because the victim was a Chinese immigrant.) WP:ROUTINE discusses things like wedding announcements, and one-and-done type stories where someone is the subject of a human interest story and never heard from again. Coverage that goes on for a month in the national and international media is hardly "routine" nor just a local news item. --B (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about WP:EVENTCRIT, bullet 4? Where is any evidence of "enduring significance"? It's simply an ongoing criminal investigation. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you distinguish between "an ongoing criminal investigation" from an event of "enduring significance"? For most crimes, the local news media reports it when it happens and then, maybe, later when someone is arrested. They don't discuss it on the intervening days. Congressmen don't issue statements about it. People don't hold protests about it. The national and international media don't report it. --B (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge per previous comments. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Article cites 7 sources, at least some of them from nationally or globally recognized outlets. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about relation to Pokemon Go A merge into Pokemon Go is not really appropriate as it has not been established whether the game was responsible for the incident. We do not merge information unless there is some link. There have been similar incidents such as Man killed while playing 'Pokemon Go' at San Francisco park but they have not been added to the article. Adding every event tangentially related to Pokémon_Go#Criticism_and_incidents makes it coatrack. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree ... he could have been sitting in his car looking at Google maps or talking on his phone and the incident would have been the same - this isn't really in the same vane as the incidents where people are playing Pokemon Go and walk into traffic without looking - the problem here was not Chen's lack of concentration on the task at hand. --B (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 13:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^^ Duplicate ^^. And I'm not sure you're reading the general notability guideline if you think that this guideline supports deleting the article. The argument for deleting is that it should be deleted in spite of the GNG - I don't see anyone claiming that there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. --B (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Another day, another news article about the case - [24]. --B (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. - TheMagnificentist 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular comments or just comments in general? At least a few of the above comments don't agree with deleting. It's not a vote and it is usually a good idea to explain your reasoning. --B (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like what the nom said "A single event that is largely of local interest." - TheMagnificentist 22:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are the national and international media covering an event "largely of local interest"? --B (talk) 22:24, 27 February 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. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George P. Broussard (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 another Billy Hathorn Louisiana biography without notability. The subject fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. The LA Secretary of State link only confirms his wife's voter registration and Find a Grave is self-published so this article rests on only one source, this book. While that source might be reliable (the entry indicates it's based on the family's documents, not academic research), it's not independent and doesn't connote notability. The newspaper citations are mere mentions. I don't see notability here. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable; not inherited (as "son of a US senator"), either, per GNG. More of a local news trivia story. Kierzek (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kierzac. Creator is a blocked, banned sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An entry by the Louisiana Historical Association in their Dictionary of Louisiana Biography makes this person notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Please show me a policy, guideline, or essay that bears that out. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ten-year old post. Subject declared notable by Louisiana Historical Association. The Daily Iberian called him "world renowned cattle practitioner." 204.32.229.190 (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Since Wikipedia is a paperless encyclopedia, and has plenty of room on the servers, the bar for notability focuses on the availability of reliable sources to allow readers to verify that a topic is not a hoax.  The nomination makes it clear that the creator of the article is the target here, but civility remains one of our fundamental principles, and had this article been G5 eligible, G5 does not require AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - when a regional historical association deems someone notable, I find it hard to disagree. Also, historians often use information from an individual's family in there work, so I don't see how that is non-academic. That said, this subject was an officer of the Attakapas Historical Association, which casts some doubt on independence. On the other hand, the editors of the Louisiana Dictionary of Biography[25] are, I think, Carl A. Brasseaux & James D. Wilson, Jr. (of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette) and Glenn Russell Conrad; and their inclusion of Broussard in the book seems to be enough to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not the Louisiana encyclopedia, and nothing about Broussard is notable beyond very local Louisiana issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "World renowned" researcher. One of 88 veterinarians in category "American veterinarians", consistent with articles on other veterinarians, some of whom are also politicians and athletes. 64.134.58.105 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'One of only' is not a recognised inclusion criterion - or can you provide a link? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability. Write-up by local historical society is not sufficient. I question the one possible claim to notability: "conducted important research on the diseases of anaplasmosis and brucellosis". There is no evidence of this. There are thousands and thousands of journal articles on these diseases and none are authored by this person.Glendoremus (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is evidence of notability.  Local historical societies are accepted by WP:GNG.  I don't know why the article calls the research "important", but the reliable source otherwise sources the statement.  As for 1000s and 1000s of journal articles, were you by any chance looking on the internet?  How many journal articles from before 1977 are available on the internet?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no notability or significance (except for the vague "world renowned" claim) found in this WP:MEMORIAL-toned article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MEMORIAL states, "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements."  Significance is a speedy deletion criteria, and there is evidence of notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Article appears to be a cobbled construction of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which fails to demonstrate any notability. The assertion of significance as a "world-renowned" veterinarian is not made by the news source, but rather is an offhand remark by an acquaintance/colleague in an article about someone else entirely. No evidence of this alleged "renown" is found in reliable sources, such as scholarly or trade journals. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is about changes in the veterinarian industry in Iberia Parish in recent decades...the state’s second licensed veterinarian, Dr. J. Arthur Goodwin trained three people from the late 1930s to the late 1960s, those being Dr. Harold Reaux, Dr. George Broussard, and Dr. A.A. Woodburn.  The reliable source reads, "Broussard was a world renowned cattle practitioner, he said..."  The "he" is identified with the sentence, "Dr. Roger Boughton, owner of Iberia Animal Clinic on Center Street, started practicing in New Iberia in 1967 under Woodburn and worked with him for nearly 20 years."  When an interviewee is speaking as a subject matter expert, that material is secondary, thus goes to WP:GNG.  WP:notability states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:OR means reporting stuff that has not been published.  Since your post doesn't give any examples of WP:OR, its claim is not verifiable.  As for WP:SYNTH, given A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography, the question remains as to what is being synthesized.  As for the article failing to demonstrate any notability, notability creates no content requirements...notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Broussard doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. If he passes some other standard, such as veterinary medicine, editors from such a group, if one exists, would need to weigh in.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A topic can be notable under WP:GNG without editors from special interest groups weighing in.&nbs; See the lede of WP:Notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cant see anything of note in the article other than the claim "world renowned cattle practitioner" which is cited to another local vet.the man himself so hardly an independent source. MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Daily Iberian article says that Dr. Roger Boughton called Dr. Broussard "a world renowned cattle practitioner". Dr. Broussard did not say that about himself. Dr. Broussard was declared notable in 1988, eleven years after his death, by the Louisiana Historical Association.2602:304:B23B:54B0:A8BA:743D:9853:C4BE (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The five previous "Delete" recommendations have all been debunked. Subject is notable through Louisiana Historical Assn.71.41.136.211 (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For all the kerfuffle over whether the Dictionary of Louisiana Biography automatically makes a person notable (show me where that aligns with the general notability guideline?), I don't see any discussion of significant coverage. And no, The Daily Iberian is a local paper, and the reason they added "he said" is because the superlative of Broussard as "world-renowned" isn't settled, but a quote from a local vet. As it would be irresponsible for the paper to claim Broussard is "world-renowned" based on a local vet, so it would be for us. If Broussard is world-renowned, the time to see the sources has already passed. The only precedent we need to follow here is sourcing. (Also Findagrave is user-submitted/unreliable. All of those links should be removed.) czar 16:39, 24 February 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. Mz7 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic “DomWan” Durham (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 person. No reliable sources provided to establish WP:Notability. Google news search returns only one hit ([26]) that just mentions him in passing. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and music producer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:49, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chidush (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 perhaps more suited for Wiktionary, and indeed novella is in the dictionary. As it stands now, this article is unsourced, non-notable and not even written correctly. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Agree with nominator that this belongs in Wiktionary. Yoninah (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NAD and it definitely does not even meet WP:GNG, as its just a definition of a word. - Galatz^Talk 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ONLY when Wiktionary has the entry. Keep per below L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an encyclopedic concept covered widely in talmudic and other halachic literature in Hebrew, that suffers from a rather clear systemic bias. Book length coverage in English includes Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues, which includes a chapter on the topic that is chock full of sources. There are ample sources available as seen from searches on the word in Google Scholar and Google Books, which barely touch the surface of material available in Hebrew on the topic. This is a crappy article for an encyclopedic topic that needs expansion, improvement and better sourcing, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So you don't think it belongs merely in the Wiktionary? Just wondering L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Author's note:

I do not feel entitled to a vote. (but)...

Would prefer to bring it up to standards

This article has been nominated for a quick demise. Meanwhile it is being discussed.

Although it's discussion may or may not be considered a conversation, my OR (Original Research) on this is:
see Conversation,

which says "if permanency or the ability to review such information is important, written communication may be ideal." This seems to be in :contradiction to the "topnote" that says "written exchanges are usually not referred to as conversations."

My marketing clause? "Shape it, don't drape it" (i.e. don't bury it). Pi314m (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• author at bat: Per (above) "Keep" comment, seeking "expansion, improvement" I've added a new section: Why is Chidush important Pi314m (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pi314m your addition, like most of the article, appears to be an argument to convince the reader why chidush is important. ::This does not read like any other Wikipedia article, as it is not written in an encyclopedic fashion, describing the topic rather than propounding some kind of argument or trying to persuade the reader about something. There is also a lack of understanding of English grammar in the presentation. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Judaica (Keter Publishing House Ltd, Jerusalem, Israel, 1972) has coverage from page 464 to 468, and Wiki is even contemplating deletion? What are all the Wiki policies about if not to describe "how to"

First this was supposed to go in Wiktionary. Then it was deemed non-notable (as if all the book titles with the word Chidush, Chidushei, Chidushim didn't make it notable). It was described as "just a definition." The same could be said about words like Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, which in some places today they don't even rate being called a word - think STEM. Nuff said? Just a few more (words).

Wiki articles wearing hats, hatnotes, etc. are applenty. Some are tagged as stubs, others go on and on and on... Eef me Anglish iz innerproperiately adikwit, than bye know someone wood hav simply rewrotten itt an brung it up too standerd, no? Pi314m (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• author at second base: Now that the article has 26 references, including two encyclopedias
  • one of them in the public domain (used 3 times) -and-
  • another (cited twice)

would this article be "more encylopedic" if it were quadrupled in size by just dumping in everything from the Public Domain source (except for the already noted above 3 citations) as ==SOME MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT==. There are numerous Wiki articles, albeit topped with HatNotes of less than glory, that are minor rewrites of Public Domain texts, and they're not facing discuss-to-delete. Is my comment unfair? To whom? Pi314m (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pi314m: it's very important for you to read the Wikipedia pages mentioned in the welcome on your talk page so you will start writing articles that are appropriate for the encyclopedia. In particular, the lack of sentence case and all-lowercase subheads is rather amateurish. Regarding developing an article about a Hebrew term, please look up other Wikipedia articles; I could offer my own example, Chavrusa. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep plenty of WP:RS on this subject [27]. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify If there are indeed "plenty of WP:RS on this subject" they haven't been added to the article. As it stands now, after efforts from the original author, the quality of the article has actually gone down by being loaded with WP:OR and personal opinions. The added references don't show any sign of significant coverage in RS, being mostly either short or material like blogs and answer websites. There is indication in the search results of possible notability, but that would need to be incorporated and then re-evaluated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - TheMagnificentist 20:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely notable per WP:GNG, but requires A LOT of work towards following WP:MOS and content guidelines. Will take time, but I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and start. --IsaacSt (talk) 03:28, 28 February 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. There's some reasonable arguments for merging, but consensus is clearly for deletion as duplicating other existing articles. If somebody wants to mine the existing article for material to reuse, ping me and I'll be happy to restore this to userspace (although, please be aware that if you want to do that, you'll need to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia).

-- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of solar power stations (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)

Wikipedia:Listcruft, just duplicate of List of photovoltaic power stations and List of solar thermal power stations Jklamo (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Jklamo (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Delete - it is, as per section name, a List of largest solar power stations that bloated to include smaller plants. Would be too short to get it's own page, and already exists in List of largest power stations. But it has more information. Info in the List of photovoltaic power stations includes capacity, generation and size (km2). Info in the List of solar thermal power stations includes capacity and technology. List of solar thermal power stations has capacity, generation, size (km2), efficiency (area) and cost. I would suggest to expand (harmonize ?) the list of parameters in the other two lists before deleting. --Robertiki (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (strong merge, actually) with the other lists given, and convert this page into a disambiguation. Laurdecl ^talk 06:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a unneeded duplicate article. Note: Until last months this was a redirect to a disambiguation. Rmhermen (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Because it is duplciate, however, there should be list for both PVcell plants and bird cookers.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Article looks more like a technical manual than an encyclopedia page. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:19, 25 February 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 One (U2 song). Nothing sourced to merge. czar 01:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A one-time performance is hardly notable. If there are no references, delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or Redirect to One (U2 song). Either way, deletion is not necessary and will inevitably result in it being recreated later. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep especially if someone can add some sources and as Koavf suggests, if deleted it is only likely to be recreated so let's see if it can be saved. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was the first user to nominate this for deletion, and I still stand by my original proposal, especially as an editor or many U2 articles. While this does technically meet criterion 6 at WP:BAND, I don't feel that it is enough to establish notability because this entire's "band"'s existance lasted for literally less than 5 minutes, or the performance of one song. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to One (U2 song). Doesn't need its own article but will make a great subsection there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to One (U2 song). As per Dream out loud, subject is not strictly a "band" in own right, but a "label" applied to members of two other bands. For all of five minutes. Notwithstanding that, and I while I normally try to avoid straw-man type arguments, if this article covered any other band that sang one-song, once-ever, then it would've been deleted long ago. Doesn't need own article. Is at best a footnote/section in the One (U2 song) article. Guliolopez (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:BAND Criteria #6. AusLondonder (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to One (U2 song). Guliolopez hit the nail on the head from my perspective; for me to reiterate his argument wouldn't be a productive use of time or bandwidth. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:49, 15 February 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 Miss World 1956. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Cherry (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 (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. She got a bit of additional attention due to a gaffe when she was competing for Miss World 1956: she was accidentally and prematurely given the winner's sash, and then ended up being named first runner-up. This story got some mention in the wake of the Miss Universe 2015 gaffe when Steve Harvey read the wrong name. See e.g. [28][29] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete being Miss South Carolina USA is not enough for notability, and no show of other notability. Passing reference because of something that had nothing to do with her actions is no reason to have a stand alone article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Claims that are not backed by policy are personal opinions, and as such are arguments to avoid (WP:ATA) in deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  As per Arxiloxos, this runner-up was briefly thought to be the Miss USA of 1956, and is still getting attention in 2015. 
• Wrong venue  There is no evidence of a deletion DEL-REASON here.  If further discussion is needed, the policy place for a content discussion is on the talk page of the article, with DR if needed including RfC.  See WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the only claims of significance here are participating, that in itself wouldn't actually satisfy the applicable standards as notability is not inherited. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Total elapsed real-time for this contribution is 74 seconds, (06:45:16 to 06:46:30).  So participation is a form of inherited notability?  That's not in any policy, guideline, or essay I've seen.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss USA 1956 § Placements, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect may be the right answer here but if so, a better target may be Miss World 1956, where I've now added some text and a couple of sources about the awards ceremony gaffe noted above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss World 1956 (thanks Arxiloxos for adding the info). The subject is essentially known for one thing, the 1956 Miss World placement mix-up. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note  This AFD was closed and reopened, see edit history for details.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 26 February 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. czar 01:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikolaj Oledzki (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 prod. Player fails WP:RLN as has not played in a World Cup or a fully professional club Rugby league competition. Mattlore (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not all sportspeople are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - played for the Bradford Bulls at the weekend.Theanonymousentry (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Theanonymousentry. Now satisfies WP:RLN. Smartyllama (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He still fails WP:RLN, as he has not played in a fully professional competition as specified there. Mattlore (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least 10 current members of the Bradford Bulls squad with articles fail WP:RLN due to having only played in the Championship. IMO it may be necessary to review the WP:RLN as things are a lot less clear cut with the new structure in Super League. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because as far as I can tell, he currently fails RLN. He may have played for Poland however, and that *could* allow him to pass RLN depending on the importance of the fixture. So if a source can be provided to show that this is the case, I'd switch to keep. Craig (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, Poland has never played in the Four Nations, European Cup or World Cup. Mattlore (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally consider a WC qualifier to be notable enough. If it's not by RLN standards, it should be IMHO. Also, GNG can also trump RLN in some cases. There's no point getting too much into this now though as I doubt this kid has played any matches for Poland yet anyway. Craig (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poland have also not yet played in a WC qualifier, and you're right that this kid hasn't yet played for Poland so it's a moot point.86.3.174.49 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sportsperson has some coverage in local media (and Sky) but is this significant enough? Lack of awards, etc.... Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby is a different sport.Fleets (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there hasn't been a sport called just "Rugby" for a very long time. There's two sports with "Rugby" in their names, Rugby League and Rugby Union, but neither holds the exclusive rights to name "Rugby". Whether indevidual supporters call either sport just "Rugby" tends to determine where you're from. For example, in Northern England, "I'm off to watch the Rugby" almost always means you're going to watch Rugby League. In Southern England, the same term would mean you're off to watch Rugby Union. I guess my point here is that it can be very confusing to people unfamiliar with either sport. – skemcraig⊗ 13:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has fallen into common usage and shortened from rugby union, not to my liking but that's how it seems. The Australians are more definitive in their usage of the word, but as you say rugby is a more than acceptable term to describe the 13 a-side code. A side point to add further confusion would be that if he did play rugby union, he would qualify by playing in the second-tier of English Rugby Union.Fleets (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. Re-create if and when he plays in the Super League. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:45, 22 February 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. czar 01:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not appear notable. Even a Google search with some additional parameters doesn't give anything useful. The only source is some very obscure book.

The article is generally very poor – see for example the factual error I explained on the talk page.

The only link to it from an article is in the "see also" section of Trpanj, the rest is just various talk pages and AfD/PROD logs. ~barakokula31 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. According to the article, it is based on WP:ONESOURCE, which suggests the possibility of WP:V issues. A bit of quick Google-ing finds discussion of Faraun as a family name or a clan in Dalmatia, but nothing about the merchants discussed here. Cnilep (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Faraun does seem to be a family name, and, to me, the supposed derogatory origins in the section, Reaction, should be cited or removed. As there is no clear source, I think the rest could be deleted as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:21, 22 February 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. czar 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gill Fielding (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 notability of this person was discussed previously at Draft:Gill Fielding and then at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gill Fielding a year ago where it was decided that she was not notable. Nothing seems to have changed since then which would mean that she is now notable. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, SwisterTwister, Devopam, Neilho, and SMcCandlish: as participants in the MFD. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a clear business listing of which our policies allow deletion. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have been unable to find any reviews of Fielding's books from reliable sources (Bridget book reviews popping up didn't help!), minute/non-existent WorldCat library holdings of her books ie. Riches, 1 library, The wealth alphabet, 3 libraries, Solving the Property Puzzle, 1 library, other titles not listed, so doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mere PROMO for non-notable individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional of a non-notable (though not utterly unknown) person, unless something substantial turns up and is added. "Was on some 'reality' TV and game shows, is rich, and volunteered for the Chamber of Commerce" doesn't equate to notability. The sources do not show that the subject has really done anything other than been on TV a few times (or if they do, then what this subject is actually notable for isn't covered in the current revision and it is not citing the sources that do show why Fielding is notable by WP standards). Even in a case of "famous for being famous", like Zsa-Zsa Gabor, there are loads of sources treating Gabor in-depth (including the famous-for-being-famous phenomenon). We don't have that here; Fielding's mentioned and credited, and sometimes briefly profiled, in the cited sources, nothing more. I predicted at the February 2016 MfD that a year later this person would not prove to be more notable, and that prediction has proven correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:41, 22 February 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. czar 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A web search doesn't turn up much and it doesn't look like the Farsi Wikipedia article is well-sourced either. Nick Number (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bekir Yıldırım (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 sources in this article are to various issues of a government gazette that list Mr. Yildirim in promotions lists. A BEFORE search turns up no additional sources. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a judge at the level he served would seem to be notable. Government documents can be used to show a position in the government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the Supreme Court of Appeals in Turkey has 150 judges at any one time, who serve 10-year terms. Despite its lofty name, it's an intermediate-level appellate tribunal. There are literally thousands of living Turkish jurists who have sat on it. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly a senior enough judge for an article. However many judges it has, it is the highest court of appeal in the land. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki (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)

Most likely an auto-biography and very resume like. Borderline for CSD G11 but I will take to AfD. Individual likely fails WP:NACADEMIC at this time. Safiel (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from the person who filed two CSDs: I've filed two CSDs and he has removed them. I did not use A or G, I used a custom db reason since it is more to be reasonable. *Xyaena~* (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I declined speedy deletion as the reason given was not valid and I didn't see any valid speedy deletion reasons. The article has not ever been deleted through the Articles for Deletion process, so CSD G4 is not applicable. Article was deleted via CSD A7 on one occasion, but a deletion under CSD A7 does not preclude recreation. The only speedy deletion that remotely applies is CSD G11, blatant spam. While the article does appear promotional, it does not appear to be blatant enough to invoke CSD G11. The best route in this case for seeking deletion is via the Articles for Deletion process, which I have initiated. Safiel (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A BLP of a scientist like this stands or falls on the basis of citation record in GS. In this case it falls. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. He was blocked for these kinds of articles. Delete is the best option. *Xyaena~* (talk) 13:41, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cara&Co (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)

Blatantly promotional - violates WP:Promo. Rogermx (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Promotional material should be removed, but the subject is notable, with significant coverage in secondary sources. See here, here, here, and here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cwmhiraeth: Perhaps it's a mistake on my end, but I only actually see Cara & Co mentioned in the first link you've posted, and even then it's such a passing mention as to not really be a reference at all. Unless you can perhaps help me understand the other 3 links then it's a Delete from me. Pishcal (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pishcal: The links I give say things like "The most famous stores are ... and Cara&Co." and "The Cara&Co shop (facing page) is one of the new retail outlets." and "Pour les fous de shopping, le magasin Cara&Co vous propose les dernieres tendances des designers Belge, Anglais et Australien." and one in Russian that mentions Cara & Co in the fourth paragraph. In essence they are mentioning Cara&Co as an important retail outlet in Moscow, ie. a notable shop, like M&S in Britain or TKMax. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• But are these sources anything more than passing mentions, anything significant enough to deem the store notable and meet gng? I apologize for not being able to read the sources, but from what you say it doesn't seem that way to me. Pishcal (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO with a good doze of WP:TNT. Not suitable for inclusion at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 19 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse (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 having a hard time finding in depth discussion of this program or organization from reliable secondary sources. I declined a speedy delete A7 request, but notability seems doubtful right now. Thoughts...? Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should an article which originated April 2015, nearly 2 years ago, be on a speedy delete list. If it lasted this long, IMHO it should be given 30 days of being open to serious comment, unless a senior editor thinks it slipped "under the radar" for VERY serious problems, e.g. copyright. The second time I faced a standard-speed 7-day delete I asked that someone please "shape it, don't drape it" (meaning don't bury it).

The topic is serious material, even if the article itself is below Wiki standards. Intentionally not having an entry for this organization, which originated over 4 decades ago and was listed on something published 3 years ago seems below why so many people turn to Wiki - not just correctness, but a sense of wide-ranging coverage of topics.

There obviously is a bug in the Wiki software that even allows something that lasted this long to be eligible for a publicly visible speedy delete, without an administrator getting involved. Pi314m (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This organization, under its former name American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, is listed in the 2-volume

Encyclopedia of American Indian Issues Today.^[1] and is listed among other American Indian organizations in 1971^[2]

• Comment The article is not on a speedy delete list. It is at Articles for Deletion a venue for the community to discuss articles where there is doubt about whether or not they meet our standards for inclusion. We don't give special privileges to articles because they have been around for a certain period of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Renaming article to "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)"

It would seem that a better name for the article is "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)" since the only text in the article from before I saw it was copied from the https://www.samhsa.gov/tloa government web site describing them.

As for the names "American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse" (and its successor "...Alcohol and Substance Abuse" they could be listed as an example of one of the government agency's "federal partners" as per

The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA) and its federal partners provide tribes with technical assistance and resources that help communities achieve their awareness, prevention, and treatment goals. The OIASA is required under the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) to coordinate those resources. The office supports a holistic framework reinforcing the belief that the mind, body, and spirit are all connected to health and that tribes know best how to solve their own problems through prevention activities and community partnerships. Pi314m (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not move articles at AfD w/o consensus since it can create confusion with regards the name of the AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I recommended that Pi314m respect the more common formatting on his talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME recommendation for the following reasons:

• There is a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA.gov)
• SAMHSA has an Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse
• It operates with partners (quote from SMSHSA: "...and its federal partners")
• The present article's name appears twice in lists of ... (but with no details)
• The present article names another partner (with substantiating details & reference citations)

Suggested name: "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)" Pi314m (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I recommended that Pi314m respect the more common formatting on his talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re the comment "We generally(emphasis added) do not move articles at AfD w/o consensus since it can create confusion" - I am not the author of the original article. Just to recap:

21Apr2015 - article created by an ID that became RedMarked (no longer a Wiki ID)

2 edits days later - tagged as Uncategorized

next day - renamed from ...Drug Abuse to Substance Abuse (per Fed Govt rename)

30Jan2017 - with no subsequent edits nominated for S-P-E-E-D-Y delete!

At this point (actually the next day) I spotted it and became a good citizen.

Someone goofed. As I've noted above, there MUST be someone who can code enough to verify that an article has been around for two years, and immediately alert a real live admin that... SPEEDY makes no sense; either just delete, after calling in the lawyers, because it's really that bad, or... just block the nomination.

Then look into the question of what needs to be fixed: merge, pad it out with tons of Public Domain text so it looks impressive (I'm joking, I think), or find a way to make it last a bit longer.

Question: can there be concensus to rename the article, to the name of a real live (probably multi-million) DOLLAR-funded government agency/office/department? I proposed one above
at Renaming article to "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)"
If a rename is approved, then perhaps more edits, regarding the federal agency, rather than the "federal partner" (the present name of the article) would make sense and help bring this discussion to its next/followup step. Pi314m (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I recommended that Pi314m respect the more common formatting on his talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am still not seeing the in depth coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. The issue is not the name, it's the lack of coverage. Absent sufficient coverage this does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Also this article is not nominated for Speedy Deletion. It is at WP:AFD. There is no special treatment for articles that don't meet our guidelines because they have avoided detection for a long period of time. If you disagree with our policies and guidelines for deletion this is not the place for that discussion. You are free to raise the issue at WT:DEL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Before listing my recommendation, I want to chime in with some reflections of the discussion so far, on the off chance that especially {ping|Pi314m}} might take input from a previously-uninvolved editor. The first thing to make clear is perhaps what should be most obvious: arguments for deleting an article are not articles against the article subject. The vast majority of AfD voters don't know about the article subject and don't actually care one way or another about the subject. They care about the article itself. It's a pretty simple consideration for most: If the article passes the guidelines a procedures, then it stays. Secondly, as has been previously explained and despite repeated assertions to the contrary, there is no current attempt to speedy delete the article. The speedy delete was declined within a day almost a month ago. To be going on about it suggests either a level of having taken offense that drowns out what others are saying or a lack of reading comprehension. In either event, the comments above imply not respecting policies on "ownership" of articles or a conflict of interest. I get wanting to defend the truth, but Wikipedia shows little concern for grand "truths". We do not "make something notable"; we reflect notability that already exists. If there are multiple, significant, independent sources that cover an article subject, the article stays. Of the sources presented, only two even mention this organization. One is a passing mention in an obituary a one of a number of organizations the decedent had been involved in, the other is a short entry in an >800pp encyclopedia. Neither is actually a significant amount of coverage. They verify mere existence, but existence is not a guarantee of notability.

Delete For all these reasons, I must conclude the article should be deleted unless evidence can be produced that it passes the notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to the "Tribal Action Plan" section of Alcohol and Native Americans. Not anywhere near enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article. I live in Arizona, where alcoholism among Indians is a huge issue, so I was pretty shocked at the dearth of information on this government agency. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or alternatively Redirect or Rename: However, I am not seeing enough information to keep, so rename is not a good option without more information. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:11, 26 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Thahane (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 actor cant find any significant coverage on her I feel she fails BASIC WP:GNG. FITINDIA (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Falls under CSD A7 and G5, as the creator is blocked for sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lindokuhle Modi. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:31, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twice as Nice production discography (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 for this production team has been deleted, so this should follow as suggested or predicted. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Twice as Nice was deleted per the deletion discussion here, so there's no need for a discography of productions for a company that has been determined to be non-notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Northamerica1000 DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Editors. I created this article after reading and editing the recently deleted Twice As Nice page. Though the discography may not take notability from the group 'Twice As Nice', can it not be made notable by the multiple tracks listed which are considered notable in their own right? Is there anything I can do to improve or save the article? Thanks (Haydon.h. (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete - Nothing can be done to justify an article which is a discography from a non-notable production company. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Northamerica1000 comment.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:34, 22 February 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FotoArtFestival (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (events) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bieniecki Piotr (creator) with the following rationale "added links and references". I am afraid that the new references still don't suffice. I don't see a single one that is independnet of the subject and covers it in depth. I see a bunch of primary sources and mentions in passing; the sources are of poor reliability - there is youtube, linkedin, etc. At best, there is coverage from non-notable, niche photography trade journals like Doc!. I checked Polish media and I don't see anything better - at most, I found a very short article ([30]) in Polish Radio. I don't think this is sufficient for this event to be considered notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this added source of nationwide portals and newspaper: Wirtualna Polska, Onet, Dziennik Zachodni, and photographic polish portals and newspaper: Świat Obrazu, Foto-Kurier, Fotopolis will be sufficient Bieniecki Piotr (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more links, including Gazeta Wyborcza (gazeta.pl)- one of biggest journal in Poland and TVP (public Television of Poland ). I hope it is sufficient. Bieniecki Piotr (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. PCoolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, a substantial amount of this article appears to have come from the article at the polish wikipedia, see here, although it looks to have be created by the same editor, shouldn't there be some sort of translation tag attached? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, question/comment for Piotrus and Bieniecki Piotr, so there aren't any useable articles about FotoArtFestival in major polish newspapers? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping, User:Coolabahapple. I took a look at the sources. User:Bieniecki Piotr has added sources to major newspaper coverage (Gazeta Wyborcza, Dziennik Zachodni [31]) that I think are sufficient for me to withdraw this nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

great, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 18 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate biographical information in secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:36, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. There are a few brief biographies in rap magazines, but no significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians, not enough reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 20 February 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. Per unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 04:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - tons of results about the topic on Google, can use ref improvement. - TheMagnificentist 18:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add some of the tons of results to that article to establish notability. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So clearly passes notability. BlaccCrab (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this clarity with regards to WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:39, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Whilst there are a number of mentions of the subject in the news, they all seem to be purely as the spokesperson for the company, which he is the chairman of, John Keells Holdings. There is insufficient evidence that he is notable in his own right. Has been tagged for notability since March 2016 with no improvements or references added. Dan arndt (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have added a few sources to the article. FITINDIA (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fitindia the references are simply mentions in passing, or comments on behalf of the company - nothing substantial enough to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt true but I just thought would add them to the article as it did not have a single source.FITINDIA (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- has held a number of high profile positions including with the publicly traded Ceylon Tobacco Company; the article presently is well cited. I would say passes the expectations for a notable businessman. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - K.e.coffman, the criteria of WP:ANYBIO are fairly clear i.e. the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times; the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field; or the person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. All the references cited are merely mentions in passing. WP:BASIC requires 'significant coverage'. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of coverage and lack of passing notability guidelines for biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Simply not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:56, 25 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surfers (talker) (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 topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Nothing notable in a search of the standard databases (EBSCOhost, PQ, Google Books, etc.) A redirect to talker would suffice, as it's one of the more prominent examples, but was challenged and in any event still has poor sourcing. czar 00:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 00:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, still no significant sources seven years after the last AfD in which the article barely survived. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:51, 1 February 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. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional webcomic artists (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)

There are several major issues with keeping this list, which was why I pushed so hard to replace it with webcomics and income, which describes the nature of professional webcomic creation much more meaningfully. I want this list to be deleted for the following reasons: Nearly all notable webcomics and webcartoonists with a Wikipedia article are professional, as are many who don't. It is incredibly hard to source for any given webcomic creator whether or not they do so professionally. There are a lot of webcartoonists these days that may be primarily known by their offline work (like Sam Hiti or Victor Santos), making "professional webcomic artist" more difficult to define. When it comes to purely online works, a lot of highly niche webcomics (like El Goonish Shive and, from what I've heard from the creator herself, Rain) that are created professionally but will likely never reach notability guidelines. Finally, there are sources that have used this list to estimate the total number of professional webcomic artists (like The Boston Globe here), but the thing is: It is impossible to list all of the hundreds of them. ~Mable (chat) 08:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not certain this list needs to be deleted, but if it's kept it does need to be refocused to List of webcomic creators. For reasons Maplestrip pointed out, the professional tag is too vague. It was probably put in to help establish notability, but that is theoretically built into a list if it's blue links only. There's also quite a bit of overlap between physical comics, digital comics, and webcomics. It would also be awkward to breakdown something like The Private Eye. Writer Vaughn had other income during its run, but artist Martin did not. So, would Martin be the only one listed as making it "professional"? Argento Surfer (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be alright with a List of webcomic creators conceptually, but I don't know how such a list would be meaningfully structured. I personally believe a category would suffice. What kind of information would such a list include? I am also worried that very few people would be interested in adding to it, which is in theory not a reason for deletion, but would in practice be a very unfortunate situation. ~Mable (chat) 21:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off hand, it would be useful when a creator article would otherwise be an orphan or otherwise underlinked. Outside of that use, I rarely add to lists myself. I saw the category already existed, and thought this would fit under the Wikipedia:CLT umbrella. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with Maplestrip above, in the sense that this list need not necessarily be deleted. We have, after all, somewhere, in the vast Wikipediaverse a template of sort that more or less states that a list is probably incomplete and might not ever be such, so it works. It is, after all, a work in progress, and people will add to it whenever they see fit. The article works. No, strike that, I go keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ouro: There is no interest in listing webcartoonists who do their craft professionally, though. The subject of this list is about as arbitrary as a List of professional musicians or List of professional video game designers. If the purpose is simply listing all notable webcartoonists, then that would be one thing, but "do you make enough money to live from this" is a whimsical scope. ~Mable (chat) 19:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move it to List of webcomic artists? It sounds like that would resolve most of your issues with it. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (more irritations) How does a third-party source even report whether a webcartoonist is professional in the first place? Aren't these all self-reported one way or another? Like, I mentioned _El Goonish Shive_ above, but who knows, maybe Dan Shive has a side gig which he considers his primary job. It's not like any sources ever talk about him anyway. I could probably ask him on social media whether he is professional or not, and then add him to this list, but what's the point even? That's just showing how indiscriminate this list really is. What is keeping webcartoonists from lying, by the way? I suppose that's what the two sections are about, but if there's doubt in the self-reported ones, why list them at all? Urgh, this list annoys me so much XD ~Mable (chat) 19:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually do with whimsical, and I find it suitable enough to say that Wikipedia can, too. This may be useful for people who are maybe lost in the world or considering a change in their lives, asking themselves whether their talent can be put to good use like this, whether they could live off this; or for research, or just for browsing stuff. And to follow up, why not list all notable webcartoonists, people who draw a lot and are watched by others, why not. And, in truth, without jest, if the list annoys You then You are by all means free to !vote for it being removed. I voiced my considerations here without any references, what I write is very subjective (I don't believe in being objective at all). In the end, somebody or others will more or less decide on the fate of the article, if their covictions are strong enough, but I kind of feel that this, if deleted, will get recreated at some point for the sheer reason that the topic popular enough for others to care that some stuff be listed here that actually tickles them. Just thoughts, really. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the rambling, but yes, what you described is exactly what I created webcomics and income for, which happens to list a lot of professional webcomic creators as well in a less random manner. ~Mable (chat) 20:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why not merge the two, huh? --Ouro (blah blah) 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting a posibly endless list as a section of an otherwise regular article? What would the point of that be? I'm currently busy with getting the article to GA, and I see no point in adding an arbitrary list of successful webcartoonists to it... ~Mable (chat) 10:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just pondering whether it's workable really. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm working on a generalized list of notable webcartoonists here. I still need to add a lot of American webcomic creators, but it's already far more complete than the list of professional webcartoonists, particularly because it defines a much clearer inclusion criteria. When I move this list to the mainspace, do you believe the list under discussion can be redirected/deleted? @Argento Surfer: @Ouro:

Done, waiting for feedback :) ~Mable (chat) 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply in Your talk. --Ouro (blah blah) 23:33, 18 February 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. czar 02:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Bhatia (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)

Sources do not show how this artist meets WP:NMUSIC. They were in a talent show that lasted one season, but didn't win. A few singles, but nothing to indicate they did well on any music chart. Most sources are primary or have a brief mention, and others have a strong feeling of promotional articles. Not enough to meet notability standards. Ravensfire (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion Spiderone 10:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable musicians.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:44, 22 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind of a Genius Records (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 see multiple independent sources that would establish notability. The quality of the sources provided is low; including a video, coverage of artists with no or passing mentions of the record company itself, releases etc. I am not convinced that any of the sources are fully independent of the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH . See also WP:ORGIND Flat Out (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This article has been rewritten and all information in which the sources do not cover the Topic 'Mind of a Genius Records' have been removed. Muzr1009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Refs 1-3 are not independent of the company, and number 4 is about the artist not the company.Flat Out (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no independent notability established by the present sources, nor found. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 18 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milly Kay (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 subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not received independent coverage in reliable Nigerian newspapers. The accolades he supposedly won are all unsourced. I wasn't able to find references to validate said accolades. The News Telegram and News Punch articles look almost identical. Both of the aforementioned references do not appear to be reliable. The News Telegram's About Us page doesn't show the newspaper having editorial oversight. News Punch describes itself as a promotional news portal.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Independent news search only brought up blogs and music downloads and didn't reveal any sort of news or coverage that could be used to establish notability, and as such fails WP:MUSICBIO. Pishcal (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - That's wrong as per above delete. I understand Versace reasons, the article lack reliable source, which the editor said the references looks identical. As per above delete Notability also falls under WP:GNG that is why I decided to find reliable source, the subject article has been discussed on some Newspaper which deos not look identical Take a look at The Punch newspaper which does not look identical. As for WP: MUSICBIO the article needs more reference. The subject article has won awards which I saw on TV. It took me a lot of time to find out the realible source because it does not pop up when I search subject aetucle. I believe the article needs improvement because he has been discussed in Newspaper which I provided passes WP:GNG. I will suggest the Tag for Adding Reference should be inserted on this Page, their I can put my best in searching out more references to identify it's WP: MUSICBIO.--Bob276 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you really consider that article "non-trivial"? Per WP:MUSICBIO, a subject is notable if they have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." I don't think that article meets that criteria. Furthermore, reading News Punch's page, it says: "Contact us today for your news promotions.", revealing that the article may not be independent of the musician. Pishcal (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough non-trivial coverage to meet the inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 20 February 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Article about a term used in a single poem, which asserts but does not source that the term has been reified into a larger concept in literary criticism. And the only "source" cited here completely fails to verify any of the content; it just links to the call for papers to a literary symposium, with zero indication that "darling illusion" is one of the concepts that the symposium was calling for papers on. I'd have speedied this if I could find a speedy criterion to jam it into, frankly. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 2 February 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decorate. Decorate. (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)