Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 27 February	1 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Even the nominator notes that notability has been established, so WP:AFD's job is done. Kurykh (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playerunknown's Battlegrounds

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

I don't see many reliable sources reporting on this game (an article needs more than just one of these and a press release), and a quick google search brings up just the official website (only reliable if it's notable to begin with), a couple of fan pages (Facebook, Reddit), the storepage on Steam, a Twitch profile, and some articles on giving away beta keys. And while this isn't a real argument for deleting the page, all the article currently says is the most basic description of the game, everything else was removed by me due to it being WP:GAMECRUFT and ′not following MOS:VG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article received international coverage in reliable sources, use GoogleNews link above and go back beginning of 2016. There are about 30 solid news articles in the German and English scene dealing with the game from past 12 month, in major game related sources, with recently additional coverage about beta testing and key distribution in many major gaming magazines. Producer is a major game design studio from Korea (TERA), additional the developer for the game, created the game genre (survival type games like H1Z1: King of the Kill and ARMA 2 & 3 mod Battle Royale), both games are played by millions everyday, H1Z1 ranks among the most played games on Steam, which is pointed out in the coverage. The article is marked as a Stub, which is not a valid reason to delete it.

Reliable sources example - all major sources: [1] (2015 article in Fortune magazine) [2] (2015 article about PU's BR mod and ARMA) [3] (German article) [4] (English article 2016) [5] (2016 interview) [6] (2016 article with publisher background). [7] (Recent article on PAX East participation) You find a lot more about the developer if you search for ARMA Battle Royale, Playerunknown Battle Royale or H1Z1: King of the Kill Brendan Greene -

Notice the AfD creator created mentioned H1Z1 article, which is barely much longer than a Stub entry, and the article does not mention PU or BR at all, and since he reasons per WP:GAMECRUFT, see also WP:Competence (sorry to be blunt, but i feel it is required, judging from the delete fest from the editors contributions) prokaryotes (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, AfD creator added "not following MOS:VG", i don't think that is a reason for deletion, since that addresses a specific article section the AfD nominator removed. prokaryotes (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion having no bearing on this article's deletion.

AfD creator is currently edit warring, he nominated the article after he got reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Playerunknown%27s_Battlegrounds&action=history Classic case of battle behaviour. Stay classy Wikipedia. prokaryotes (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit warring involves two people you know, and the article not following guidelines is a reason for me to edit it, which is exactly what I did (before you continued to revert them). I nominated due to the perceived lack of notability, with your primarily reason given "because H1Z1 is popular on Steam" not being a valid reason for why this game in particular should stay as an article. You being upset because somebody else edited an article you created isn't going to help your argument either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

"I don't see many reliable sources reporting on this game"

Every weekend during the Closed Beta Test, it gets on the top 10 on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/directory

On top of that, go on YouTube and search for the game: https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=CAMSAggD&q=battlegrounds

And also it's on Steam, if you want to further see the game: http://store.steampowered.com/app/578080

That your source(s) right there. Azgoodaz (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)azgoodaz[reply]

Tip: You need third party sources, from actual journalists/writers. Please see WP:VG/S for examples of valid sources. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, in my above comment are several RS, VG/S seems outdated, it does not include Twitch interviews, the one i used (see article talk page Features section), seemed reliable - interview, for additional information. Someone should add some of above links for background infos. I am personally too busy elsewhere. Good luck. prokaryotes (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I, and many other experienced editors, actively maintain it. Feel free to propose ideas, but it is indeed "up to date". Sergecross73 msg me|

It might be a bit insensitive, but if he doesn't have enough time to add proper sources in the first place, then he probably shouldn't be arguing in favor of keeping the article (as the creator). Anyway, it does seem like the game has established notability now, but should the WP:BURDEN for adding sources go on me for nominating it or the article creator for maintaining it? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one !voted for deletion, so you can just withdraw the nomination and be done here, and the burden can be on whoever wants to have the article be improved at that point. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 6 March 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) 02:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Charmed

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

Fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even for fictional elements, they are just not notable. I can't see how this random list has any use for anyone, even the biggest fans. That is not to say that locations are not notable in all TV shows; I just can't even imagine how these would be so for this TV show. All of the sources are created by WB, the network on which the show airs; there are no reviews, books, or essays in this article to show notability. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fancruft, not notable Spiderone 12:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom/Bearian.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 7 March 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) 02:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AcquasMagicalAdventures

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

Promo article for self-published children's book, fails WP:NBOOK. PROD contested by article creator without comment. Creator's username indicates they are likely the author of this book. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same reason I put the prod tag on the article - it fails WP:NBOOK. GSMR (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish the author well, but at this point in time the book just doesn't pass NBOOK. It hasn't received coverage (reviews, articles about the book) in places Wikipedia would consider reliable like newspapers, academic journals, or major literary websites like Tor.com. Most self-published works fly solidly under the radar because there are so many works and so few outlets that can or will cover them, and this work is not an exception from what I can see. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, nothing found to assist in notability, appears on amazon, youtube and other similar sites, but no reviews, the series of books have been self published via createspace, an amazon company, very difficult to become notable for wp, hopefully a case of WP:TOOSOON and we will see this author's work(s) on wp in the future.... Coolabahapple (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 7 March 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) 03:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Summer Evening with Floating di Morel

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources in article are non-independent; either the filmmaker's or the band's sites. Searches don't bring up anything beyond database listings, social media, download sites, etc. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 3 March 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) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santanen algorithm

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

This appears to be a hoax. The article has seven footnotes but only one of them supports the main content of the article; the rest are background. The one source for the content (Santanen 2002) does not appear to actually exist: the DOI is broken, Google Scholar does not know about it, and DBLP, which would normally list publications and researchers in this area, has no record of an R. Santanen (instead it knows only of unrelated researchers Jukka-Pekka Santanen and Eric L. Santanen). MathSciNet also does not list R. Santanen as an author. The phrase "Santanen algorithm" does not appear in Google scholar. The journal's table of contents for that year and page number range [8] do not list any such paper and list two other papers whose page numbers overlap the given page range. The claim that the main application of this algorithm is to pack people into a sauna is also highly suspicious. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. ISBN number for Santanen 2002 also in error and article creator removed a PROD by claiming notability due to a mention in another article that he placed there himself. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it isn't a hoax, this is a cute problem (how to pack people into a sauna!); but without secondary discussion of it and its solution, it doesn't satisfy GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly because I have complete faith in D.E. on such subjects, but I did take a quick stab at similar searches to what he describes doing, and came up with the same result: nothing. E Eng 19:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did my own search and found nothing on Google books, either. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 7 March 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 Role-playing game terms. And partial merge. Of course, the target page can also be nominated for deletion. Sandstein 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total party kill

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

All sources broken, couldn't find many replacements online. Generally seems like limited demographic parlance. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failing WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I have a feeling the sources - all dead links - either never existed, or aren't the type of thing that would support the existence of an article... Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia policy requires that content be verified by reliable sources. It specifically does not require that those sources be available to any and every editor; see Verifiabilty § Access to sources. The sources cited here include dead links, but they do appear to have been published at some point, in which case they would presumably qualify as sources. That said, all those sources are apparently a game developer's blog that uses but does not discuss the phrase in question. That makes them insufficient to establish notability or verify the information in the article. Dead links don't come into it. The question is, do appropriate sources exist (either online or IRL)? Cnilep (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Role-playing game terms.. Tough. The term has certainly entered popular culture, but there are very few reliable sources. This is the best I could find: RPG Handbook - Getting Started. Thistle Games. 1 September 2013. pp. 157–. ISBN 978-1-908798-15-2.. There are some mentions in passing, but no discussion of origins, detailed meaning, etc. Given the lack of quality sources, it is tough to see how this term passes WP:GNG. I suggest a merge and redirect to Role-playing game terms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, makes sense...but do we have faith in the continued existence of that redirect target too? It's terribly sourced, relatively barren, and tagged for cleanup since 2010... Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 7 March 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) 03:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Ryan Wolf

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted songs or award nominations. Unable to locate secondary sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to the lack of secondary sources or notable achievements, he is not notable and the article should be deleted.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:141C:9E8B:6F41:2A29 (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. No other apparent notability. No other significant secondary sources available. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:13, 7 March 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) 03:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Queen Vodka

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

When you take out the list of awards and the stuff sourced to Snow Queen marketing material, there's nothing but one sentence describing a not particularly notable product. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just pure spam for a non-notable product. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 4 March 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) 03:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Field

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

Fails WP:RLN as not yet made debut for Wigan Warriors first team. PROD contested without reason by article creator. – skemcraig⊗ 19:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:RLN. Minimal online sources found on search. No other apparent justification to keep. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in either of the two professional leagues in England.Fleets (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recreate if he plays first grade in the future. Mattlore (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable rugby player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 7 March 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) 03:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Fell

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

Fails WP:RLN as not yet made debut for Wigan Warriors first team. PROD contested without reason by article creator. – skemcraig⊗ 19:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in either of the two professional leagues in England.Fleets (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but no prejudice against re-creating the page if he makes his first grade debut in the future. This is the annual rush of editors creating pages in anticipation of what might occur during the season. Mattlore (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable rugby player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 7 March 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; article now meets WP:RLN. (non-admin closure) --Jack Frost (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Marshall

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

~~Fails WP:RLN as not yet made debut for Wigan Warriors first team. PROD contested without reason by article creator. – skemcraig⊗ 19:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. Recreate if he plays first grade in the future. Mattlore (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wigan v Leigh Fleets (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – I nominated this article for deletion when Liam still failed WP:RLN. However, the player now passes as he has made his professional debut for Wigan. Skemcraig 13:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep - as nom, you should be able to withdraw this. Mattlore (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW. South Nashua (talk) 06:06, 6 March 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) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Eaves

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

Fails WP:RLN as not yet made debut for St Helens first team. PROD contested without reason by article creator. – skemcraig⊗ 19:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There was another player in this same position. I think this is a "AFD is not a replacement for cleanup" situation, there is likely some content out there can be used to expand things here. South Nashua (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails a policy like WP:RLN because they player has not yet played, how on Earth can the article be simply cleaned up to pass? – skemcraig⊗ 19:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From RLN..."Other players and personalities surrounding the game are notable if they meet WP:GNG." I'm not convinced that there aren't external sources out there yet. I'm not 100% sure that there are either, but I don't think any effort has been put into trying. South Nashua (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply as here – skemcraig⊗ 21:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply as here South Nashua (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SPORTSPERSON, never having represented a professional club. Also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in either of the two professional leagues in England.Fleets (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate if he plays first grade in the future. Mattlore (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable rugby player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 7 March 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) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Lees

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

Fails WP:RLN as not yet made debut for St Helens first team. PROD contested without reason by article creator. – skemcraig⊗ 19:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in either of the two professional leagues in England.Fleets (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate if he plays first grade in the future. Mattlore (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable rugby player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 7 March 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) 04:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gannon

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

Fails WP:RLN as not yet made debut for Wigan Warriors first team. PROD contested without reason by article creator. – skemcraig⊗ 19:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in either of the two professional leagues in England.Fleets (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think this is a "AFD is not a replacement for cleanup" situation, there is likely some content out there can be used to expand things here. South Nashua (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails a policy like WP:RLN because they player has not played, how on Earth can the article be simply cleaned up to pass? – skemcraig⊗ 19:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From RLN..."Other players and personalities surrounding the game are notable if they meet WP:GNG." I'm not convinced that there aren't external sources out there yet. I'm not 100% sure that there are either, but I don't think any effort has been put into trying. South Nashua (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a passionate supporter of rugby league, I can assure you that youth players yet to debut do not pass GNG. – skemcraig⊗ 21:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Hell, I might actually agree, but as an outsider, I don't think enough effort has been made to assure this one way or another. South Nashua (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recreate if he plays first grade in the future. But right now he is not notable and he might never be. Mattlore (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable rugby player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 7 March 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) 04:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Cunningham

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

Fails WP:RLN as not yet made debut for St Helens first team. PROD contested without good reason. – skemcraig⊗ 19:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. Maybe WP:TOOSOON, but unclear with current context. Cannot stand as it is right now. I will see if additional sources can be added, but unsure if I can find any. Expert's perspective on this subject would be appreciated. South Nashua (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think this is a cause for cleanup, not deletion. It also seems likely that he will play at least one game with the senior team soon due to the new contract, so TOOSOON and CRYSTAL don't really apply here. South Nashua (talk)

Text book case of WP:CRYSTAL, he could suffer a career ending injury in training next week for all we know and never play for the first team... – skemcraig⊗ 19:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the contract is the key here. Anyone drafted in North American sports leagues is notable, this seems to be an equivalent. He's on the roster. South Nashua (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be the case for American sports, but RLN does not (yet) allow players just contracted to be notable enough, they need to play. – skemcraig⊗ 21:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: He is a junior player with a famous last name. While he may soon play first grade and be notable, it hasn't happened yet. I tried to find some more sources because I thought he would pass GNG anyway, but I really only found more versions of the stories already used in the article. Mattlore (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in the two professional English leagues. He famous father cannot counterbalance that IMHO.Fleets (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Re-create if and when he passes WP:RLN. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable rugby player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 7 March 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) 04:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Party President

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

Original research. The leader of a party is unequivocally known as a party leader, not party president, in Norway, which is one of the few countries cited in this geographically limited text. Geschichte (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah. Doesn't seem to be a thing. —swpb^T 20:45, 7 March 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) 04:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Kitcher

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

Politician who was an unsuccessful candidate for parliament and has not held office above local level. Fails to meet WP:NPOL on those grounds. Article contains no other assertions of notability, and she has only incidental coverage in the non-primary sources. QueenCake (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidiates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for the national legislature are not notable for that fact in and of itself — but the article fails to demonstrate that she has any preexisting notability for any other reason, and the sourcing isn't even close to making her more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NPOL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:27, 7 March 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) 04:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Savery

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

Was deprodded (rationale on article's talk page). While accomplished, does meet either WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NUKEANDPAVE aka delete. The subject may be notable (of which I'm not necessarily convinced) but the current article's malformed copy is not of value to the project. The first search result that comes up is the newspaper obit, and this is sufficient. There are some name checks in Google books (link) so no prejudice to recreation if notability can be established via RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 4 March 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 merge to List of Charmed characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major villains in Charmed

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

This list appears unnecessary. It fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. The characters from the list that have notability already have their own separate articles: Billie Jenkins, Christy Jenkins, Cole Turner, and Barbas (Charmed). The other characters do not appear to have notability outside of the series, and the information relating to them can be covered in the lists on their respective seasons or in the general list of characters for the series. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Charmed characters. I can't see any reason for the villains to have their own page. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I didn't think about merging it to the primary list of characters for the show for some reason. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Charmed characters, after appropriate trimming. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If the result is to merge, then I will do the appropriate trimming if/when the time comes for that. Aoba47 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Charmed characters.Agree with above reasoning.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 7 March 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) 04:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Fitt

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

No clear evidence of notability. Most of the references provided are not reliable. This page looks very much like a promotional effort to market Marc Fitt. Mr RD 18:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, peripheral interest only, maybe recreate further down the road. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a free webhost; we are a charity. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 7 March 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) 04:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Karson

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

I do not think this person is notable: she was a member of a band that may be notable, but per WP:NMUSIC that does not make her notable unless she has "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band" and I do not think her founding of a "maker" group or being a university lecturer cross that threshold. Her solo album certainly is not notable as it seems to have received zero press. Coverage in reliable sources seems to be limited to local, free-weekly and blog-type coverage only: [9][10] Fyddlestix (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally, I would suggest redirecting to Zola Turn, but her old band doesn't appear to be notable either. The stub is written so haphazardly ("sharing leadership responsibilities") that I think it might be too far gone to fix. Based on the analysis above by Fyddlestix, I don't see how this person meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 4 March 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) 04:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rupyal

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

There's still no indication that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. @Tavix:, whether these two articles should also be affected by this AfD. Kalyal, Bangial. sami ^talk 12:33, 3 March 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) 04:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping (film)

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

Article created by now-blocked WP:COI. Sources don't demonstrate WP:NOTE as either non-WP:RS or non-WP:V (the one "press article" cited is really a link to the production company's web site, and searching that paper's archives didn't turn anything up). While the subject of the film is certainly notable, WP:BEFORE does not show any sources to comply with significant coverage in independent sources about the film itself. Unable to find evidence meets WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G11. Substantially created by blocked editor who unambiguously intended it as promotion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like part of this is copyvio from the DVD jacket synopsis, so it could be speedied as copyvio at the very least. However overall the issue I'm running into with sourcing is that the majority of coverage for this tends to cover the performer and the performance pieces that he occasionally does, not the documentary film in specific. I found the Boston Globe review, however the other reviews listed in the press release look to be reviews of the guy's overall performance of this character, which he's done as performance art for years. For instance this is listed in the press release as a review, however it's clearly a review of a performance art piece done in 2000 at a Starbucks. He might have recorded some of this for his documentary, but this isn't mentioned in the article. Honestly, I don't see where there's really enough here to justify an independent article, as the bulk of this could likely be covered in a small subsection in the main article for the character. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, there's technically enough here to pass NFILM but not enough to really show how this would build upon the pre-existing article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Puustinen

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

Not enough sources and presumably not notable. FriyMan ^talk 17:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of news hits (though I assume the chicken farmer is somebody else). Sorry, don't speak Finnish well enough to be able to improve the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the nomination statement really does sound like there was a presumption of non-notability, based on the sources on the article. But that's really not how this is supposed to work. After a look at the Gnews results -- with the aid of Google Translate -- he does appear to meet WP:GNG. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Solid references in RS match GNG. More, the nomination was clearly flawed (as hinted at above), as obviously no WP:BEFORE was even attempted. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 7 March 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) 04:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFF3CT

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let us give you some elements that will hopefully help you to better understand why we believe AFF3CT is elligible to be on Wikipedia. AFF3CT is a non-profit, open source (MIT licence) and academic tool to simulate Error-Correcting Codes (ECCs). As such, it fufills the Wikipedia philosophy of open knowledge and sharing. AFF3CT can be used as: a research tool to develop new codes, in industrial contexts to reproduce existing results and to simulate new configurations on big clusters. But AFF3CT could also be used by any random individual (a student, a maker, an Arduino addict, ...) that would like to improve its own communication system. A common application of AFF3CT is the wireless communications like WiFi, 3G, 4G, 5G, etc, but it could be extended to any other communication setup. It can also be used as a library like the Wikipedia referenced IT++ but it is simply more specific to the Forward Error Correction (FEC) domain. More generally, this tool helps to better understand what is an error correction code and thus modestly contributes in understanding the (technologic) world around us. Even more importantly, the most simple reason why we would like AFF3CT on Wikipedia is maybe that we would have loved to find out the existence of such a tool on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) when we started to get interested in ECC.

We hope that these few elements will help you better understand why we want to share the existence of AFF3CT on Wikipedia.

Please feel free to give us some tips in how to improve the AFF3CT page ?

K0uchy (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)K0uchy[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not matter how wonderful the tool is (looks great by the way). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we have articles about topics that are already well known, as shown by independent reliable sources. It isn't a place to publicize something new. You need sources that show what others say, in depth, about the tool. Also the present article is a copyright violation of https://www.researchgate.net/project/AFF3CT-A-Fast-Forward-Error-Correction-Tool. Even if you wrote the text there, it can't be copied here. Notice the copyright notice at the bottom of that page. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:48, 4 March 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) 04:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in Portugal

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

There is no indication of notability and the article is written based entirely on unreliable sources. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 16:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two (suspect) items does not a list make. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability and no RS about sums it up. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

notifications: Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]; Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]; Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]; Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not a directory of the dubious. Neutrality^talk 06:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge with list of UFO sightings.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a list of non-notable HOAXES. Ajf773 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing worth merging or redirecting either Spiderone 12:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's what "they" would want. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge to List of reported UFO sightings, or similar. At least one of the sources is not non-reliable, Jornal de Notícias is a decent newspapper. The said news article reports that the (second) sighting was studied by University Fernando Pessoa, from an historic point of view. Havins a news report 20 years after the event, also hints to some persistent notability. That some of you do not believe in UFO sighting, and I also would not bet that is was a UFO sighting, does not make it a hoax, the sighting was likely real, what was sighted is not certain. The article's first sighting is weaker, because the one reference to Jornal de Notícias leads to a dead page, but I presume it would not hurt to merge and see if it get better attention there.Nabla (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:38, 7 March 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. Consensus is that the subject is too known for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to apply here. Since this policy only uses the word "may" anyway, there is no prejudice to do so. Plus, removing the AfD tag indicates that the nominator maybe wished to withdraw his nomination anyway. So Why 14:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Frigo

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

This article is about me. I do not wish to appear public on Wikipedia, it conflicts with my own image and the information I wish to provide through my own website Alberto.frigo (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe we can accomodate this per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A highly notable artist who is covered in literally dozens of sources. Examples: 1. Yahoo news, 2. The Irish Times, 3. Swedish National Radio, 4. a book pub by Routledge called "Installation Art and the Practices of Archivalism", 5. "Code/space: Software and Everyday Life", by MIT press, and 6. a Profile by Bruce Sterling in Wired. He received the Swedish Prix Mobius award and was part of a significant exhibition at the Hasselblad Foundation. I also found examples of him being mentioned in fields outside of art (included in "Environment and Planning: Planning & design, Volume 34, Issues 1-3", so his art research is transdisciplinary, which is very rare. Meets WP:GNG very easily. The article itself is well sourced, the subject is well-known per the sources, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply here. Article subject's work is already published across diverse media, so deleting it per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would be a case of "image" management rather than policy. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the subject wants the article deleted, why did he remove the AfD tag? Mduvekot (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question but not relevant to the discussion.104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be interpreted as an an attempt to revoke the request. Perhaps we could ask the subject? Mduvekot (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be faster to ask an admin to close this as keep, since it does not meet WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE-- the sole delete rationale.104.163.140.193 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is for "relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". Alberto Frigo is notable and not unknown, so it has to stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He's notable but relatively unknown. I tend to err on the side of delete in cases like this -- I am in the minority when I do so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He had a profile in Wired magazine and many newspaper articles... can you really say he is relatively unknown?104.163.140.193 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly good pick up of the Chris Parsons Yahoo news piece -- and there was something in Wired back in 2006. I guess it comes down to how you'd interpret "relatively." I'd probably be arguing keep if it was up for deletion. I do tend to err on the side of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that may come close to WP:IAR, if someone isn't what I would regard as a prominently notable person. Which I'd argue this one-handed lifeblogger isn't. But I get that I am going to be on the losing side in this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! You are correct about being on the losing side-- once notable, always notable.104.163.140.193 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an article that (as far as I know) is unobjectionable about somebody who I infer is sufficiently notable (as the term is understood hereabouts). ¶ Above, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is cited. Here's what this says: Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." ¶ Let's assume for now that User:Alberto.frigo is indeed Alberto Frigo and thus is "the subject", so that this might apply. Obvious problem: "relatively unknown" is meaningless, as what it's relative to goes undefined. What is clear is that Frigo is neither unknown nor non-public. Though once-public people may change their views and choose to retire from the world, it's not at all obvious that Wikipedia should then remove articles about them; anyway, as recently as 2015 Frigo cooperated with (mass?) media coverage of what he was/is doing: example in Metro, example in The Journal, example in Fast co. Therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't seem to apply. If Frigo objects not to the existence of an article but instead to ingredients, bias, tone, etc of this article, then he should go to BLP/Help. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 8 March 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) 04:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Gallagher (fighter)

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

Same reasons as the first two AfD - does not meet WP:NMMA. The Db-repost was declined because the article was different enough however the second AfD was for a truncated version of the first. This version is pretty much the same as the first deleted version. No top tier fights and BJJ success was as blue belt (i.e. lower level.) Peter Rehse (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to get recreated after each fight he has, although none of them are for a top tier organization. There is nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Competing as a blue belt in BJJ is not competing at the highest level and winning a silver medal isn't very impressive when there are only two competitors, nor is success in "Juvenile 2" divisions as a blue belt. None of the coverage can be considered anything but routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 22:40, 3 March 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) 04:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher King (options trader)

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

Was deprodded with the following rationale: "This page is not finalized as more information from more third party sources are being compiled, due to copyrights In due time it will definitely become a substantial article with cogent information for research and knowledge.) " However, no improvements over the past week. Appears to be promotional piece, very poorly sourced. At best it might be moved to userspace of the article's creator in order for potential development. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all the sources are from the company King created. Clear lack of passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet either WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG criteria. No other secondary sources available on search. Appears promotional. --Jack Frost (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted per G3. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia at the 2018 Winter Olympics

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

Rambling nonsense about Australia at the Winter Olympics that have not happened yet. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This a clear G3. Why the AfD? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:24, 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 Speedy deleted per A1 RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A train arriving at a station

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

Very short new article with barely any text and no context to explain what the article should be describing. Notability cannot be gauged as there is nothing to base it off of. (As of 13:02, February 28 2017) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:02, 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Poole (musician)

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

Article relies on a dead link to prove its subject's notability JayCodec (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not about what's in the article, it's about what you find with WP:BEFORE, otherwise it's just a referencing issue rather than notability. At worst, this would be a redirect to Queen's Players rahter than deletion. Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article on the group he was part of has 0 references, and there is nothing suggesing that Poole passes GNG. It is not even clear that the group he was part of is notable, but nothing about him is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One dedicated, secondary source article (from the Wayback Machine (-:). No mentions in any of info links at the top of the pages. Lacks WP:N. Tapered (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least on the Canadian side of the equation, I just ran a ProQuest search and found virtually nothing that would bolster his passage of WP:GNG at all — I get hits only in the Kingston Whig-Standard, with no evidence of any coverage beyond the purely local. The National Jazz Award is not an award that gets enough media coverage to be a notability-conferring award in and of itself, fairly or not — so it doesn't confer an automatic notability freebie because National Jazz Award on a person who can't be otherwise sourced over GNG. Accordingly, I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually bolster his sourceability on the New Zealand end of things by showing media coverage I can't access — but nothing here exempts him from having to be the subject of more media coverage about him than I've been able to locate. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom is probably a student at the school who thinks nominating this will get it deleted .... unfortunately as he doesn't know policies he's failed rather miserably here, Anyway no valid reason has been presented for deletion and obviously meets SO etc etc etc. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwallis Academy

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

Page not needed Stuart.eatwell (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Typically, secondary schools are considered notable. Sourcing here is a bit... iffy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A recent RfC says to avoid quoting WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but still suggests that only quite basic coverage is needed for high schools, and that's easy to find: Ofsted report, School Guide details, local coverage of school uniform controversy, Department for Education data, Argus listing, story about the construction, case study in a book about effective parental involvement in school government, etc. Mortee (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the sources mentioned by Mortee, there are several more at kentonline.co.uk and other news sources (although few of them are complimentary). This article seems to be a magnet for vandalism, but that is not a reason to delete. The nominator provided no reason at all for deletion - "not needed" is not a test we use! It seems this school is notable in Kent (under current guidelines, notability for high schools can be established by print and/or local media), and it is the subject of a case study of parental involvement in education. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strange nom. School is extant. Is reasonably large secondary school. Lots of sources. No brainer. CalzGuy (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Ludicrous rationale for deletion (i.e. none) from a single-purpose account. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:48, 7 March 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 Hamirpur High School. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamirpur Board Primary School

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

Non-notable primary school. Only sources are WP:PRIMARY ([11]), directories ([12]), Facebook ([13]), since it lacks independent notability. Propose redirect to the secondary school, Hamirpur High School, Hamirpur, Rourkela. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. Non-notable primary as per WP:GNG. No reason to keep. CalzGuy (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hamirpur High School, Hamirpur, Rourkela as per nom. –Davey2010^Talk 21:08, 7 March 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul John Dykes

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

Writer of sports biographies, which appear to have been well received (e.g. mentioned in Scotsman book lists) but are essentially narrow fan-interest publications, about notable subjects but of little notability themselves. Although the article cites several reliable sources, they are mainly news items of the "a book about a notable subject has been published" variety, rather than carrying any particular coverage of Mr Dykes, so I'm inclined to think it fails WP:AUTHOR. To be honest, I suspect a degree of promotion (possibly self-promotion) behind this article, as its creator's editing other than on this article is almost exclusively limited to the subjects of Mr Dykes' books. Until I removed them, it also included unsourced personal info, such as date of birth, and a link to a commercial Celtic books website. Jellyman (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator, User:HummingbirdSong, left the following response on the talk page of this nomination, rather than directly here. I have copied it across as follows:

"These publications are not "narrow fan-interest" items. They include an authorised biography about a Scottish international World Cup player, and a Scottish football captain, who managed clubs in America and Australia.
Each book has been published by separate publishers, and they are not fan or self-published.
In terms of being notable works, two have been named in a national newspaper's end-of-year merit list, and the other was adapted into a feature-length documentary (as listed on IMDB).
On the subject of the edits being around one subject, my interest lies in Celtic literature, and the subjects written about here (The Quality Street Gang, Neil Mochan & Andy Lynch) all have Wikipedia pages that include references to their respective biographies and autobiographies. By expanding on the subject of the author in this case, readers of Wikipedia are able to research further, each of the respective publications. It is not relevant that I, as someone who has taken the time to make factual edits to this site, has done so exclusively to one subject. This is not something that should prevent me or other users from making updates (exclusivity of subject) unless there is a term of use preventing them from doing so.
To further speculate that I have done this as self-promotion would suggest an accusation that I am indeed Paul John Dykes. This is an unfounded accusation and not one that I take lightly. These updates about a notable, three-times-published, author and documentary producer are in keeping with the terms of Wikipedia (which were fully read and understood in relation to notability etc).
On the contrary, the reason that you wish for these articles to be removed would appear to be self-motivated, as they deal solely in speculation (that you believe the author to be the subject).
Perhaps the DOB information was unsourced, but it was factually accurate and obtained from other online sources (Amazon and IMDB).
In terms of the link to a webpage, again perhaps poor edits on my part, but this was a link to this author's publisher's homepage, and no more a commercial effort to sell books than any other link to an official website."

This is the full text their response, excepting quotations from my original nomination. Jellyman (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on Wikipedia's deletion criteria, but I have seen many articles worse than this. I have also looked at WP:AUTHOR and to me this seems like a reasonable inclusion due to two of the books being nominated for awards by a national newspaper on separate occasions, and referenced accordingly. Obviously the books themselves are not notable but due to there being two such nominations I think there is at least a decent argument for the author being listed. The books relate to a fairly narrow subject but of course football is immensly popular and Celtic is a club close to many hearts with a rich history so it would not be suprising that books on the subject would be both popular and meritorious, and that readers would wish for the author to be more widely known having enjoyed the books. So overall my vote would be for Keep so long as nothing further is added which appears to be promotional in nature (obviously new works would deserve a new mention). That being said, I notice with amusement that User:HummingbirdSong does not actually deny being the subject of the article. It is a little atypical that a person would create a Wikipedia profile purely to create a profile of a fairly obscure sports biography author and link the subjects of the author's books to the author's profile, without being in some way connected to that person, therefore I wait to be convinced that if you are not Paul John, that you are not perhaps his agent or publicist. Crowsus (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Claim to notability is based on 2 books about Scottish football. The first is said to have inspired a documentary, but the documentary does not appear to have come out yet. There appear to have been no published reviews of either book. The first book did attract a small amount of attention when it was announced that it would become a documentary film. Finally, both books were included in The Scotsman's lists of the 20 or so Top Sports Books of the year. Not at the top of the lists, and I am tempted to suspect that The Scotsman included them because of the local angle - and editorial need to include a local book, at least, inclusion on such a list would be more persuasive if it was in a newspaper published in Dublin or Sydney. In addition, I have some suspicion that this article may be intended to assist with promotion of that documentary, if it is actually going to come out. If that is the case, one of the editors active on the page or in this discussion might want to offer to move this article to userspace, and bring it back when/if the film or a more notable book makes this writer notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

one thing I would point out is that the second Scotsman list is more of a collection, I don't believe the books are placed in any order of merit and a lot of them are based around Scottish/Edinburgh subjects so I don't think the book in question is a particular local sympathy vote.

@HummingbirdSong:, looks like this may be your final chance to keep your article on Wikipedia... Crowsus (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the earlier point that a contributor remained unconvinced that I am not the subject of this article, I wish to state for the avoidance of any doubt that I am not.

In relation to the documentary adaptation, this was completed and released in 2015, and it is listed on the Internet Movie Database with Paul John Dykes as the Executive Producer. This documentary was adapted from the author's second book, Celtic's Smiler: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt5539538/

The question around his third book (Hoops, Stars & Stripes) being included in The Scotsman's list due to it being sympathetic to local subjects, I would point out that other subject matter of other books also on the list included Argentina, Real Madrid and Johann Cruyff. This is a list of football books of the year, not Scottish football books of the year.

There are numerous reviews of the three books and the documentary online. These links (and the IMDB link to the documentary) can be added as sources, and I am happy to do this in order to reference the subject more thoroughly.

Perhaps this listing was initially poor in its structure and referencing, but the subject should remain, as the author's work has been critically acclaimed (The Quality Street Gang and Hoops, Stars & Stripes in end-of-year lists) and adapted on to the big screen (Celtic's Smiler).

HummingbirdSong (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 12:05, 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 redirect to Bong. Disregarding the blocked Denarivs's opinion. Sandstein 18:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Water pipe percolator

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

This is an article about subassembly within bongs. I assume that standard Wikipedia rules apply to this field. The article itself has no suitable sources, despite its length and detail. Due to the subject matter, I doubt any good sources are available. I searched and found this one, for example: Types of Percolator Bongs, published by ‘Best Bong Reviews’. It doesn't seem to meet WP:IRS standards. If editors think a properly sourced article is possible I'd be happy to withdraw this AFD, but I believe it's destined to remain a collection of original research and, at best, dubious sources. Felsic2 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep ~~for now~~ the subject appears notable. There is likely a source somewhere -or- it's also possible the device falls under another name that is more popular in the industry. More research is required to determine why there are no good sources from a simple Google search. Unless a more comprehensive search and explanation is given, I see no reason to delete at this time. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search. If you can't find any sources either then who are we thinking will find them? If good sources are found in the future then the article can be recreated using them. Felsic2 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that hookah is the same technology. It appears the appropriate term is waterpipe rather than water pipe percolator. There is plenty of WP:RS for waterpipe smoking (e.g. [14]), much of it having to do with safety concerns of "waterpipe smoking": [15] [16]. A search of "waterpipe smoking" gives an unlimited number of articles that constitute WP:RS. There are quite a few different terms for the device: "A medical librarian was consulted and agreed with the search strategy used. The PubMed search was carried out using a strategy employing synonyms of ‘waterpipe’: waterpipe OR hookah OR shisha OR goza OR narghileh OR arghileh OR hubble-bubble." [17] Example of article on shisa [18]. I think it quite premature to assume this is an insignificant device technology. There is also [19] and [20] regarding percolators used in pharmacy and chemistry. Our [Percolation] article is quite weak! I am surprised. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bong and Hookah are fine articles. This article, though concerns a minor part of those water pipes. The first sources you offer don't mention the word "percolator" at all. The last two sources you provided don't concern water pipes but would be good for a general article on Percolator, if we had one. Felsic2 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Bong. This is a trivial detail of a somewhat notable subject. There are no reliable sources. Glendoremus (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would tend not to agree that the article "Types of Percolator Bongs" isn't reliable for our purposes here. All vetting of reliable sources comes down to the different ways to answer the question "how confident are we that this information is accurate"?

That is why we will, often enough, take even a blog post as a good source. If a Nobel Prize winning academic with a solid reputation for expertise and veracity gives some neutral (not controversial or contended) statement of fact within his field of expertise on his blog (and assuming we're confident it he really wrote it), we're usually OK with that, even though it's just one guy writing.

Ideally, we prefer material that we are confident has been gone over by a rigorous fact-checking operation, though. But always in the service of answer the question "how confident are we that this information is accurate?".

And when you're getting down into more obscure areas, you often just are not going to find a reference from a major daily newspaper or a mainstream magazines or peer-reviewed journals. So then you have to go Plan B. And fine, unless you're just going to give up on covering large areas. Lots of our articles on comic books and music and a lot else don't ref to mainstream or peer-reviewed journals because they can't. Anyway, Best Bong Reviews is Plan B.

How confident am I that the article was gone over rigorously by a fact checker, who (for instance) called up manufacturers and talked to experts there and so forth, to make sure the writer got his facts right? Not very. Best Bong Reviews is not Der Spiegel.

But consider:

First of all, there's no reason for Best Bong Reviews to lie about this stuff. I can't see any incentive for that. There're no ideological issues in play. (It's not impossible that they get under-the-table money to push certain products or whatever. However, this article doesn't mention any products or manufacturers, so this seem quite unlikely here.)
And they do have some incentive to get this stuff right. If their stuff is riddled with errors, people are going to avoid their website, and they probably don't want that.
They seem to have expertise in this field. The internal evidence of that article indicates that it was written by a person who cares about this stuff and seems to know something about it. Same as with the Nobel Prize winning academic's blog: it's in their wheelhouse.

All in all, that adds up, to me to an answer for "how confident are we that this information is accurate?" of "pretty confident". Could be wrong. I wouldn't bet my house on the veracity of any fact in the article. I wouldn't use Best Bong Reviews as a source for an article on the Palestinian peace process. But for this? Looks OK to me.

Since it's OK (if you buy my reasoning) then a properly sourced article is possible, which pretty much knocks out one of the pins of the deletion argument. (The argument that this is too much detail for a general encyclopedia is still in play though.) Herostratus (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I might go through and delete the unsourced material. Felsic2 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Felsic2: How about putting a tag above the appropriate sections (or at top of article) warning about unsourced material instead? We have a number of articles on major subjects of law that have either no sourcing or almost no sourcing and have stayed that way for quite some time:

Licensee
Bundle of rights
Petit jury
Implied-in-fact contract
Mortgage law#Equitable_mortgage
Concurrent estate -- includes joint tenancy, tenancy-in-common.

Also, it seems like much of the material in our article can be found in Types of Percolator Bongs. I am not going to say that is good WP:RS--I have not researched it. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since no section of the article has sources, the tag could be applied to the whole article. And then the whole article, minus its first sentence, could be deleted. (The only sources are primary sources used inappropriately to reference one sentence.) As for the listed articles, while they may not have cited sources there are dozens if not hundreds of easily available sources that are eminently reliable which address common legal terms. They are very different situations. Felsic2 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Felsic2: I agree there are plenty of high quality sources that are relatively easy to find on the legal articles I mentioned, so you are right this situation is different because of that. We will have to agree to disagree about whether there exists or is likely to exist sufficiently reliable sources for the article under discussion to justify keeping the article and any of the content. I have the feeling they must exist somewhere, but I just don't know where to look and I am not that motivated to spend more time looking. Hopefully those who have created or added substantially to the article will do some research to find better sources, or convincingly show any of sources identified so far meet WP:RS standards.

I would request that if the article is deleted, it is done in such a way that the material that was so diligently worked on is saved. From working at AfD, I see that there are different kinds of deletes. I'm not sure how to make the appropriate request to preserve the edit history if the article is deleted. (It bothers me how often we lose the entire edit history when there is not universal agreement to delete an article. It's not like the articles take up that space on the server. I will be happy to discuss that somewhere else that is appropriate.) I believe a redirect does that.

Please let me know If you are aware of any policy or guideline that discusses how long an article without proper sourcing might stick around--especially for the case where there is reason to believe such sourcing might be available, but simply has not been sufficiently researched by the authors. The law articles don't meet that standard since the sourcing is definitely available but no one has taken the time to add it. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the lack of sourcing, WP:V, feeds back to the lack of notability, WP:N. If a topic hasn't been written about in reliable sources, then it's impossible to write a verifiable article about it, and maybe we shouldn't try. As for preserving the material pending the discovery of sources, that's putting the cart before the horse. If we find a reliable source then we should write content based upon it, not simply add some citations to the existing text. If you'd like to keep working on it you can always create a copy in your personal sandbox or copy it to your own computer. See Wikipedia:Userfication. Attribution of any previously written text would be an issue to resolve if it's ever posted again. Another option would be to republish the material elsewhere. Wikia may have a "Stonerpedia". The content on http://bestbongreviews.com/types-percolator-bongs/, while not a verbatim copy, seems to cover the topic equally well. Felsic2 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent points made by the guy above me. This is exactly the sort of high-value content wikipedia should strive to provide. Denarivs (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 12:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to bong or delete entirely. Felsic2 makes a strong point about the lack of available sources indicating a lack of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To quote WP:NPOSSIBLE: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." There don't seem to be enough sources that people agree meet WP:RS. If such sources are found in the future, the article can be rewritten based on those sources. I agree with Felsic2 that the sources provided in this discussion by David Tornheim appear to be more about water pipes in general, not water pipe percolators in particular. I welcome them to be added to relevant articles, such as bong or hookah, but I don't think they suffice for this article. 786b6364 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 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 Lonzo Ball. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiAngelo Ball

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ATHLETE. Was deprodded with "He is the middle brother of the very notable Ball Brothers. His brother Lonzo has a page and even his younger brother LaMelo". None of which goes to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He hasn't received quite the coverage that his brothers Lonzo and LaMelo have, but there are still plenty of reliable sources available about him. If this article is expanded and more sources are added then it could be notable enough. TempleM (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lonzo Ball or delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. He is the brother of star college player Lonzo Ball. Looking at the coverage, the vast majority mention his brother, which makes me wary of WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd have less concerns if LiAngelo was an elite high school player, but he's only rated a 3-star (out of 5) college recruit, and hasn't received All-American recognition. He will play at UCLA, so it's not far fetched he will get significant coverage in college. At this time, I'd have to say this is too early. Aside: It's WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it's more likely younger brother LaMelo Ball is notable, even if LiAngelo isn't.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both of his brothers have articles, and LaMelo Ball is also a high school athlete. They are known nation-wide. Spike789 🇺🇸 19:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - None of which goes to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per Bagumba. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 09:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bagumba.--Yankees10 19:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lonzo Ball per above. This is often done with non-notable individuals related to notable ones. Smartyllama (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received adequate coverage to meet GNG - just in the past few weeks there have been articles about him from USA Today AND New York Post plus a little coverage in Forbes. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 votes each - relisting for further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 12:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Bagumba, classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:30, 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. The consensus is that, because the book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the book itself, and because the book does not meet any of the additional criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books), the book is not notable for a standalone Wikipedia article at this time. Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cruel Streets Revisited

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

Non-notable book; self-published ~~vanity press~~. A WP:BEFORE reveals the only mention at Amazon shopfront. No independent reviews. Not the subject of others' writings. No literary awards, major or otherwise. Author (John F. Wake) is non-notable in his own right. Fails WP:BOOKCRIT and WP:GNG. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found basically nothing. TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wordcatcher Publishing is NOT a vanity publisher. As the Owner I can categorically state that the author paid us nothing to have the book published, and we will only get a return on book sales. It is a well-researched book, with extensive copyright attributions and thorough research on Cardiff history using reputable archives and with the assistance of Cardiff Library Service. David Norrington, Owner, Wordcatcher Publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.86.54 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough; I withdraw my poorly-chosen choice of words. Apologies for that. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book has received the type of coverage in independent, reliable sources that Wikipedia requires to show notability per WP:NBOOK. This is actually pretty par for the course with self-published works, as there are always more of those then there are RS outlets that would be able and willing to cover them. This book just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, have been unable to find any reviews from reliable sources, maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK.Can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:50, 7 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House Afrika Records

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

Article about a record company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches only turned up Owen, Threse (26 November 2014). "House Afrika home of SA dance music" – via IOL., which is already included in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable record company with several notable signed artists. The Therese Owen source is excellent. Also this and this. AusLondonder (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited from the artists, and those are nothing more than routine PR pieces. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting the Therese Owen source is a "routine PR piece"? Do you realise iol.co.za is the internet presence of a number of reliable South African newspapers? AusLondonder (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the mediaupdate.co.za and thesetmagazine.co.za ones. Yes, I do know that about IOL. The Owen piece is good. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sourcing in the article supports the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The Owen reference is the only reliable source in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the company doesn't meet WP:GNG let alone WP:CORPDEPTH. Of the 3 sources provided 2 are unreliable (discogs and itunes), and the 3rd is ~~not independent~~ not enough to establish notability ~~Coverage of a company announcement doesn't establish notability~~ and the company doesn't inherit notability from the artists it signs. Flat Out (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Out How can you say that the Independent Online source is not independent? AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I noticed this earlier but held waiting to comment, what's here is simply not what we establish significance in notability with, and without the assured improvements, there's no convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Good faith relisting - no prejudice on outcome
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 14:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:58, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italian New Zealanders

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

See AfD discussion on this DrStrauss talk 11:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Neutral Merge into European New Zealanders – A reasonable amount of Italian Kiwis; slightly passes GNG. ~~Balancing per Glendoremus. Would be good to merge into European New Zealanders, keeping the content.~~ Happy to help out with a merger. Changing my !vote to 'keep' after expansion by Dash9Z proving notability. J 947 19:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable has been asserted and I can't find any references that would say that Italians in New Zealand is somehow a notable concept. Article asserts a census count and a (brief) list of Kiwis of Italian descent. We already have a list that covers the latter.Glendoremus (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging Glendoremus to reassess article following expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many Italians who have contributed to New Zealand society. The history of Italians in New Zealand spans many years and many New Zealanders enjoy aspects of Italian culture. Dash9Z (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how does "many New Zealanders enjoy aspects of Italian culture" add to notability? LibStar (talk) 11:01, 3 March 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. Consensus is that the sources provided establish notability. (non-admin closure) J 947 19:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carola Insolera

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMODEL. I was unable to find any in-depth coverage of this person from independent sources (in other words, not interviews or stories about the clothing that she has modeled). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht:I am afraid you overlooked the biggest Italian newspaper's article, La Repubblica http://d.repubblica.it/moda/2017/02/21/news/carola_insolera_modella_sorda_sfilate-3431564/ please check google translation. Magise (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That source is an interview, which means it isn't independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: Do you mean you need any article that talks about her without interviewing her? Something like this one http://www.vous.hu/hir/20170212-siket-modell-rendezo-sign-gene-carola-insolera ? Am I missing some links? Magise (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: In accordance to the WP:NMODEL, Carola

1. Has been working for numerous brands and campaigns 2. Has a significant "cult" following 3. Has made unique and innovative contributions to the fashion industry: again, his model is a native visual communicator (she only uses the visual language since birth). She does not use interpreters at all when working and this is mind blowing for many professionals. Her purpose is to have a direct contact with the photographers and the team so she can welcome all of them to her visual world. That's where the artistic chemistry starts. Lastly, 'thanks' to the deafness, like she states, she will just express limitless visually next to the camera. Results are outstanding. Her deafness is indeed a plus to her, one of her main assets. This is obviously a very new concept. A very inspiring approach. Here we are not talking about amateur models but professional ones. This is undoubtedly an unique contribution in the field of the fashion industry.

In few words, there are two worlds: sound world and visual world. She is the only model, ambassador of the visual world that invites the professionals to explore her world. This scientific concept should not be undervalued. There have been various articles about her, mostly just printed. Am I still missing something? Magise (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht:

Apart the uncountable links about her modelling work here are a some works that are independent from the subject

http://www.acm5.com/vgs/1_tegnspraak/materiell/webhefte13/kopioriginaler/progr_kult_dager_04.pdf here it is a program of the show where she was an actress for ”Den fortapte sønn” Carola “Wisny”, it was her last name before meeting his husband.

http://www.ndhs.no/wp-content/uploads/dt/DT2007-7.pdf Carola Wisny in the role of a princess for a TV series

http://marinabrenere.com/moments/

Advices? Magise (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: Also please check she working for various TV series at http://www.dovesmediatv.no (just log in, search "carola wisny" and you will find a bunch of her work from there)

Lastly, another article independent from the subject http://www.corriere.it/reportage/cultura/2014/i-miei-suoni-senza-voce-la-storia-di-christine-sun-kim-2/ Magise (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one small point for OP, but...an interview "not being independent" for the purposes of using information from it, is not exactly the same as "not being independent" for the purposes of determining notability. I know nothing about this person or this paper, but if large established publications are putting out full interviews with an individual, that is a perfectly acceptable argument in favor of notability. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Timothyjosephwood. I believe this article should not be deleted. DennisPietras (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references include unreliable sources such as YouTube and Instagram. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more links. As for Robert McClenon's comment, we can alwaus delete the two Youtube links and the Instagram one if we have to. Rest of the sources are however very reliable ones. I agree with :@Timothyjosephwood: and :@DennisPietras: the article includes sufficient sources therefore it should "not" be deleted. Magise (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I worked on the article some, and removed some of the promotional language, which is of course is neither here nor there for the purposes of notability. There seems to be dozens of news sources available, but there's almost nothing in English, so not much I can do with that personally. Because of that, it is concerning that there doesn't seem to be a corresponding article on any of the foreign language projects, although it looks like there was an article on it.wiki but it was speedy deleted for being promotional, which is of course a criteria based on article content and not notability.

IMDB (I know...don't lecture me) lists two films she was apparently in, but I can't find anything on them really at all, although again that may be a language issue. There may be other sources available using her maiden name, but I didn't find much other than this, which is trivial mention and so doesn't help notability. But overall, I think this one's pretty borderline as it currently stands. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Here it is what I just found, BBC links: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p011m05c and http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p011lby5 Carola on BBC for "Ways of Talking" (link from IMDB). I just added them Magise (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both links give a "content not available on this device" error, which I assume, since I'm on PC, means the link is either wrong or I'm in the wrong country. TimothyJosephWood 13:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for your continued collaboration. Here it is another one, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p011mlks or

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/640x360/p011ws9f.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/clips/zqc6rdm&h=360&w=640&tbnid=bWMMDuF0gZMAiM&tbnh=168&tbnw=300&usg=__2En7DD2XfBM4OHI96LjWidvikss=&docid=phRwycXHDT4fJM#h=360&imgrc=bWMMDuF0gZMAiM:&tbnh=168&tbnw=300&w=640

Still image is an enough proof that it is Carola and plus she has been credited on IMDB. Same here, player is not working. BBC must have its own reason, monetary related Magise (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but a broken link doesn't really do anything as far as establishing notability goes. TimothyJosephWood 19:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding many new links today. It looks good now. Magise (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow assessment of sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article stays. 212.67.117.30 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This one is worth saving. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:26, 7 March 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) 04:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAS: Zombie Assault 4

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

This is a video game that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The article has no sourcing and my own searches turned up none. Whpq (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 11:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 11:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:SIGCOV test if the VG/RS search drags up so little. --Izno (talk) 12:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky J

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

Article does not assert the importance or notability of the subject and therefore may not meet the notability criteria for musicians. The article does mention that the subject has a single that has peaked the "Billboard Canada single sales chart" but it's not verifiable since there's no citation. JayCodec (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has featured on Billboard charts twice.[21][22] Qualifies on NMUSIC. Lourdes 13:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The chart in question is not Canada's national sales chart, or one of them as there seems to be three that we recognize here (The Billboard Canadian Hot 100 would be the Billboard chart to look for), but there is an Allmusic bio ([23]), this, and another brief mention in Billboard here. Releases seem to be mainly on small labels or self-released (CD BABY). Seems possibly notable but I'm not sure there's enough coverage to have much of an article. --Michig (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell, Ricky J also reached #2 on the standard Canadian chart. See [24] (Michig has also linked this, I see). Even if he had only reached #2 on the singles sales chart, in 2001, he'd be by far notable; that's a huge achievement which inevitably would result in media coverage. Chubbles (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO. JayCodec, upon further reflection, would you consider withdrawing your nomination? Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article for this "White watered-down hip hop artist" (Raphael, Mitchel (24 April 2001), "Hip hop, well ... hop anyway", National Post). Hit #2 on Billboard’s Canadian Singles chart with No Means No even if it was "despicably awful" (Sperounes, Sandra (29 January 2003), "Bubbles and Trailer Park crew a sidelight to Raine's outpouring", Edmonton Journal) and was accompanied by a bad music video (15 of the worst Canadian music videos). Whatta Night also made it to #42. For more coverage see Remember When This Date Rape Anthem Was The #2 Song In Canada?, Yes man and Paint the Town: CM Interviews Ricky J, A Rapper With His Own Genre. Not spectacularly so but Mr. Oss is notable.duffbeerforme (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW - The GNG has been met, as has WP:NMUSIC. A WP:BEFORE search would have shown this. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 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) 04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X-Trade Brokers

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

Seems to fail WP:NCORP. Deprodded by anon, likely creator. Sources are mostly PR/self-published. Also, while this is not a notability criteria, if a Polish company doesn't even have a Polish Wikipedia article, it is a big red flag saying 'internationally-aimed spam' to me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I removed some clear advertising material from the article a few weeks back. I don't really see anything that is not advertising. A paid editor anon has edited the page recently (and made something of an attempt to post his paid status). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, also fails on notability grounds. Is this really something that we would consider putting in an extended printed encyclopaedia? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A3 -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nandamuri Balakrishna's 101th film

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

WP:HAMMER. While the film could become notable in the future, and indeed there's already some coverage about it, given the lack of available information at this time, it's probably at best a case of WP:TOOSOON for this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article serves little purpose. Ajf773 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider CSDing it for no content... Lourdes 08:41, 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 merge to Captain Video and His Video Rangers. Kurykh (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tobor

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

Procedural listing. This article was blanked and redirected to Tobor (disambiguation) by User:Scifist with the following edit summary: Since this page was so filled with faulty information, I created a new disambiguation page, and redirected this page there. - Eureka Lott 00:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Captain Video and His Video Rangers. Does not seem to meet WP:Notability (fiction) - neither the coverage nor the argument makes any case for stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Captain Video and His Video Rangers per nominator and above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 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) 04:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Australia

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

Non-notable event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I have found some secondary source coverage but I doubt it is sufficient to pass WP:EVENT or WP:SPORTSCRIT

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think trove shows that sufficient NEXISTs to safely pass GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a Australian National Championship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.94.108 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:BBLP and WP:BIODEL. Kurykh (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shona Chhabra

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

Requested by article subject via OTRS (ticket #2017020210005956), per WP:BBLP. Nominator offers no opinion as to whether this should be deleted or kept. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as for the first AfD. Biwom (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politekid (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - COI / Socking It seems the article was originally created by Shwethahc who was blocked as a sockpuppet. Seems like a possible case of undisclosed paid editing/COI. (I wonder if they are trying to get it deleted to hide the evidence). I am also curious about Sadashiv.kamal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sskamal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 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. The consensus is that this article is unnecessary in light of existing coverage of the subject at Stamford Bridge (stadium)#Future. Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Stamford Bridge

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

This isn't a new stadium. It's a redevelopment of an existing stadium, on the same site. Material already covered by Stamford Bridge (stadium)#Future. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, adequately covered in parent article. Giant Snowman 08:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the same stadium. Number 5 7 09:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary fork, not a new stadium. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, or if anything useful can be salvaged from this article Merge to Stamford Bridge (stadium)#Future. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 7 March 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) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kuhn (entrepreneur)

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

The firm varsity Books is possibly notable,party for the legal issues involved. But he isn't, neither for that are subsequently. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NGA Human Resources

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

Article is little more than blatant advertising, and has survived CSD on the grounds of the creator improving it. Company could well be notable but as it stands would have to be totally rewritten to be encyclopaedic. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam, likely COI driven. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any article that says it is a global provider of solutions, when it appears to have nothing to do with solutions, is clearly marketing. Also note strong overlap with Northgate Information Solutions. W Nowicki (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a loaded PR page. The way it is written is like a press release or an advert. Kierzek (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:57, 7 March 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 merge to Bye Bye Birdie § Bye Bye Birdie Live!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye Birdie Live!

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

At best, this article fails WP:CRYSTAL. The production doesn't exist yet and will not for 10 months, during which time anything can happen, including cancellation, despite plans. AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bye Bye Birdie § Bye Bye Birdie Live! as per WP:ATD-M. The merge target article already has some content about this topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NA1k. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space at Draft:Bye Bye Birdie Live! to nurture its development there to then move back to the mainspace if and when it is ready. Or merge it the section suggested by North America 1000. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bye Bye Birdie § Bye Bye Birdie Live! as per WP:ATD-M. This can be recreated in the future if/when this occurs, but right now I agree with the nominator and the above commentators. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting as nominator that merge does seem an appropriate outcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bye Bye Birdie#Bye Bye Birdie Live! – I was going to agree with Draftify, but there's not enough there to even bother Draftifying... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bye Bye Birdie § Bye Bye Birdie Live!.Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:00, 7 March 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) 04:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Dé

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

The speedy was declined with "Teaches at a notable school". Notability is not inherited and I didn't find any sources of him being notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: page has now been moved to Rahul Dé which reflects the spelling of his name in the single source. PamD 13:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 10 not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Deleteas I concur, nothing for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This indicates that he has held a named chair at IIMB. I am not familiar enough with Indian academics to know if that institution would meet the "major institution of higher education and research" stipulation at WP:PROF#C5, but I thought I would throw it out there. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly Harvard. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any response to the most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment - Recanting vote to take a neutral stance per arguments presented by Lemongirl

My rationale for the keep is based on the following considerations - WP:PROF#C5 is enough to qualify the notability test. Indian Institute of Management Bangalore can be considered as a "major institution of higher education and research", because

While it may not exactly be Harvard, according to the QS Global 200 Business Schools Report, students of IIM B have the highest average GMAT scores in the world, which at 780 was much higher than Harvard's 730. -[25][26]
Financial Times puts IIM B as the 49th best college in the world to pursue an MBA and the 19th best college in its Global Masters in Management 2016 rankings. - [27][28]

While notability is not inherited, since WP:PROF#C5 specifically allows for pages on professors like him (He is the Hewlett-Packard Chair Professor in ICT for Sustainable Economic Development - [29]), the article warrants a keep according to me.

WP:PROF#C7 can also be considered. Here are some media references.

[30] is an article he wrote for The Hindu.
[31] is another article he wrote for The Hindu.
[32] is an article he wrote for Mint (newspaper).
[33] - He is quoted in The Times of India.
[34] - He is quoted in the Mint (newspaper).
[35] - He is quoted in The Times of India again.
[36] - Interview in The Times of India.
[37] - He is quoted in the Deccan Herald.
[38] - He is quoted in the Business Standard.
[39] - He is quoted by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Thanks. Jupitus Smart 14:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened AfD and relist to elicit any comments on Jupitus Smart's analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Newspaper articles written by the subject are not helpful for WP:PROF#C7. There needs to be secondary sources which explain the subject's contribution.

The only possible criterion which might have been applicable is WP:PROF#C5 - The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). However, I see some problems here. The concept of a Named chair or Distinguished professor are applicable to a small portion of tenured faculty who have done exceptional research. However, at this institute, I do not see evidence that this is a tenured position. Management schools often have these "sponsored chair professor" positions, but these are not equivalent to the traditional named chair which has rigourous requirements. At this point, I do not think that WP:PROF is satisfied. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You probably did not see the articles in which he is quoted as an expert. Only 3 of the 10 odd articles that I managed to find where written by him. The other articles quoted him, as he is considered an expert on the subject. WP:PROF#C7 doesn't require these sources to mention the subject's contribution. These sources that I mention are notable and independent institutions which consider the subject's contribution (which you seem to be looking for) to be notable enough to merit asking for his opinion.

The concept of tenured professorship is different in India. Unlike in other nations, Government jobs are largely permanent once you are appointed, similar to the broad idea of job security that tenured professorships offer in other nations. Being appointed for the position of Associate Professor or above in Government owned institutions (the concerned person is a Professor) is generally an appointment till the age of retirement. Also he is the chairperson of the Centre for Software & Information Technology Management, an autonomous centre within the university, something that won't be awarded to run of the mill professors, especially in major institutions like IIM B. And Sponsored chairs are as much named chairs as the other 'traditional' chairs (which are also sponsored by people or by the university), irrespective of what your Original Research may deem them to be.

As for GNG, professors are not always the toast of the town in India. But do consider the fact that he is on the Governing council of Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology, the Central Bank of India, RBI's, research and development arm, which makes policy decisions affecting the entire nation. Also consider that he teaches a course on edX which is viewed by students by across the world. These and the regular press coverage he gets as a subject expert is as much notability a professor can possibly achieve. Jupitus Smart 17:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had another, but I am still not convinced for a keep.

I had a look at every single news report. 3 are written by him, so it's not useful. 1 is an interview which is not useful either. Out of the 6, 5 of them are all in the same time period of Sep-Nov 2009. Many of them simply quote him but do not explain why he is notable or why is he an expert. The only other report was in 2013 where he was again quoted, but there was no mention about him being an expert in something. This isn't what we call "frequent quotation" and wouldn't help to fulfil WP:PROF#C7.
The h-index is something which bothers me. Information science is a highly cited field, but I only counted an h-index of 11 in Google Scholar (Xxanthippe seems to have counted 10). This is quite less, much less than someone who I would expect to be tenured and in a "named chair" position.
The criteria about "named chairs" at WP:PROF#C5 doesn't give a free pass solely due to an endowed chair, it requires tenure at full professor level and the intention of the guideline is to be highly selective (See Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level). In addition, simply because the appointment is to an endowed post, doesn't help to prove notability. If what you described as the tenure process (appointments for life) is true, then unfortunately it doesn't count as a selective process. I looked through some of the profiles of "Professors" in the subject's department and quite a few of them such as the Dean have an h-index around 8, which falls short of what is expected. (Most academics in this field would require > 20). I would really hesitate to call this selective.
The autonomous centre is similar to the concept of research centres/labs. These are mostly administrative posts and not helpful for WP:PROF (the idea is to ensure that the subject's work had made an impact).
I understand that GNG is hard for academics, which is precisely why we have WP:PROF. In this case, the significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not enough though.

Overall, I believe I will stick to my delete. WP:PROF is meant to be there for academics who may not pass GNG, but whose work in general has created an impact. If I do the "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?, I find it very hard to go for a keep. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have anything to do with this professor. I have begun to realise the futility of fighting for retaining his article when it was not even made by me. I was sucked into this vortex because I voted Keep and had to maintain my perfect record at AfD's. I admit that I cannot even calculate the h-index, and its useless arguing with people who prowl Professor AfD's when I am more of a movie AfD guy. So I am taking the easy way out, and changing my vote per Lemongirl's assertions. Have a good day. Jupitus Smart 04:27, 4 March 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) 04:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg M Mercer

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

Per WP:GNG. Sources provided are noted as potentially unreliable, and an internet search for "Greg M Mercer" comes up mostly with social media accounts and the sources that are already listed in the article. Not a ton of coverage on the accomplished listed as notable: starting a company in 2014, and publishing a case study in 2015. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal secondary sources. No additional material indicating notability or notable achievements found on an internet search. Delete --Jack Frost (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 3 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Lynch King Sr.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Leslie Lynch King Sr.

Prior AFD

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

Notability is not inherited and aside from a single biological act this guy is a complete nonentity. I am unimpressed by the keep arguments advanced in the 2007 AfD. There doesn't appear to be anything of note about this man that is not already covered in Gerald Ford. If we have an article about a less consequential figure I can't think of it off hand. See also WP:1E. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Then why doesn't' a link to the previous Afd appear in the discussion here? Did you create this Afd manually? I don't know how to add this, but I think it may need to be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Lynch King Sr. (2nd nomination). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im wondering that as well. I created the AfD with Twinkle. Noting the absence of the previous AfD I added a link in my nominating statement. That said I have no objection to moving the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AH HAH! I see the problem. There was a comma in the title of the original AfD that has since been removed from the article name. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can probably fix it then. I'd try to later, if no one else does. You've linked to it anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Result in previous AFD discussion was keep due to existence of good sources. Jrheller1 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:1E. The existence of sources is not the last word in notability. The bottom line is that this guy's sole claim to fame is one act which is more than adequately covered in Gerald Ford. Beyond that single incident he is a complete nonentity and there is no reason for an article. If this is not a case of 1E then that guideline should probably be done away with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that biological fatherhood is "one event" seems to be twisting WP:1E. Even if one does interpret biological fatherhood as "one event", WP:1E says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Surely being a biological father is more important than being an assassin! Jrheller1 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely being a biological father is more important than being an assassin! - I could not disagree more strongly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Gerald Ford's father put several years into the relationship with Gerald Ford's mother necessary to bring Gerald Ford into the world. An assassin might spend several days preparing for an assassination. Jrheller1 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might be worth some detail in an article on Gerald Ford's mother, and wouldn't be worth a stand-alone article even then. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To the article on Gerald Ford anything on him that is worth noting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - He's the father of Gerald Ford, for goodness sake. In any case, there is a good deal of material about him in newspapers and in Jerald terHorst's biography of Ford (and elsewhere besides, I assume). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, my !vote is based on GNG, which he pretty clearly passes (I obliquely refer to in depth coverage in reliable sources in my previous comment). I didn't find terHorst's 1974 biography, but added material from Cannon and Cannon 2013, as well as Gullan's book about the fathers of the presidents published in 2004. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are exceptions to GNG including 1E of which this is an obvious case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't know that I've ever seen exceptions explicitly mentioned in notability policies for people (other than WP:IAR),~~[1E and NOT are both called "exclusionary criteria" in the BASIC section of N, sorry for the confusion] can you point me to what you mean? I agree there is some nuance when a person is notable for one event, but it isn't clearly spelled out where the line should be. Some examples are given, I can't say for sure if King is more or less notable than the examples at WP:1E or WP:WI1E and we generally do not compare articles at AfD. For some guidance, I might suggest WP:NEVENT, in particular, WP:PERSISTENCE. Gullan's 2004 book was republished last year, so to me, from 1974 (terHorsts book) until now, Ford's birth and the divorce of his biological parents has been considered notable. The divorce itself received significant coverage in papers in 1912 and 1913, and that coverage is mentioned in Gullan and in Cannon and Cannon. The meeting between Ford and King when Ford was in high school has also been a constant feature of stories on the young Ford since 1974. Perhaps Ford's birth and the divorce can be covered in the article on his mother and perhaps the meeting between Ford and King when Ford was in high school is trivial and perhaps the relationship between King Sr. and C. H. King can be covered in the article about King's father. So, you could say that no article is needed about King as most everything can be covered elsewhere and ultimately he is known for one thing. But coverage on him includes a lot more than one event and has been in depth, reliable, and persistent. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King's biological relationship to Ford is his only claim to fame. His article clearly demonstrates that beyond being what another editor aptly described as a "glorified sperm donor" he was a complete zero. His influence on Ford was, while perhaps not non-existent, it was certainly trivial. And any relevant information is already to be found inGerald Ford. This is an unnecessary content fork about someone who does not meet our notability guidelines per WP:1E unless you believe that notability should be inherited. And if that is the case, this is the wrong forum for that discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread 1E, and I still don't understand your argument. For instance, it writes: It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Notability is determined by in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources, and multiple aspects of King's life have that coverage, as would be expected by the son of a multi-millionaire, an individual who beat his wife and got a divorce in the 1910s, and then himself became massively wealthy after his father died. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see this aggregate, like the last one, never read WP:NOTINHERITED. Listen folks, if you're just going to !vote based on your gut instinct rather than stick to policies, guidelines, and essays then we're just going to be a tyranny of whatever majority shows up. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Literally the only thing that gives this guy any notability of any kind is the biological act of fathering a child: he left his wife 16 days after Gerald Ford was born, he never paid any sort of child support, and he (reportedly) met his son ONCE in his entire life. This guy wasn't a father, he was a glorified sperm donor. WP:NOTINHERITED would apply even if he had raised Ford, but his only real connection to Ford is purely genetic. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability isn't inherited, and WP:BIOFAMILY says that family connections alone don't make someone worthy of a page. He has no real claim to significance that doesn't have to do with his son Gerald. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've updated the page a bit over the last few days with an eye towards GNG. The main sources I used are a book on the faith of presidents by Holmes (2012) which discusses King's influence on Ford across a couple pages; Cannon (2013), a biography of Ford where King is discussed in depth across 8 pages, and three books about the father's of presidents (Young 1997, Gullan 2004 (republished in 2016) and Wead 2005) which each give King a titled section between one and three pages long. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is plenty of precedent that the parents of presidents are notable, notwithstanding other rules. Bearian (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read James Cannon's book about Gerald Ford. Ford's relationship with Leslie Lynch King, Sr. was mentioned in the book. I agree that there is precedent that parents of United States Presidents are notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have an established precedent that parents of Presidents are treated as notable. Sometimes these pushes for deletion become too bound up in a strict adherence to policy, without sufficient consideration of what is best for our readers. Would we be providing them with a better encyclopedia by deleting this article? No, we would not. Presidents of the United States are massively significant historical figures, and their parents play a massively significant role in their lives. Lepricavark (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this exception to our guidelines and policies apply only to the fathers of American Presidents, or does it also apply to the fathers of all heads of government globally? And does it also extend to mothers? I am starting to smell some of Wikipedia's more pervasive institutional biases here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be brutally honest, American Presidents are more important than many heads of government globally. I think we all know Donald Trump has more power, influence, and significance to our readers than Kersti Kaljulaid. I do believe this is an instance in which an exception to the normal approach is warranted. And in my original comment, I said 'parents', not just 'fathers'. Lepricavark (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interesting and "brutally honest" reply. I am starting to see an RfC on this general topic in the not too distant future. I will wait until after the AfD closes so as not to muddy this particular discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fathers of Presidents are subjects of numerous books and articles. They clear the hurdle of third party sources. Americasroof (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some are and some are not. But the issue here is WP:1E and whether we are going to extend a blanket exemption to the fathers (and mothers?) of Presidents. And will it be just American Presidents or do other countries get the same exemption from our guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smmurphy, Bearian, and Lepricavark's comments in particular; we've had a long precedent for articles on US presidents' parents, and we would not improve the encyclopedia by deleting this article and thereby complicate access to its content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says he only saw his son once, and comments above talk a lot about references discussing his father's influence on him throughout his life. Is having influence sufficient to replace having an actual presence? How much influence did his father have on him? Can you inherit notability from someone because they think about you from time to time? I guess to me it just comes back to the question "what did he do?" Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The specific guideline WP:1E does not trump WP:GNG. If King "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" than he is presumed to be notable. It appears established that he meets that standard. Even so, GNG does not demand that notable topics have their own articles, but in this case all the material in King's article (which is NOT subject to notability rules) is too much to merge into the article on his son. The only real argument I can see in favour of deletion on the basis of policy is through "What Wikipedia is not". For example, it is not a directory and it doesn't do case studies. Srnec (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- reasonably well sourced and has encyclopedic relevance. The article could stand to have some intricate detail removed, especially if cited to genealogical records. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:52, 5 March 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) 04:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Sharm Waterfalls Resort

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

fails WP:ORG. coverage is very routine. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another WP:MILL hotel with no independent coverage or notability. Ajf773 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's no place in Wikipedia for run-of-the-mill hotels where even the article creator can't find (or be bothered to look for) anything remotely notable about them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched NewsBank, Lexis, and Proquest: found nothing. Searched Ahram and Egypt Independent (national newspapers) and no results. No evidence of notability could be ascertained by me through these searches. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:54, 5 March 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 are three main points to consider when closing this discussion:

1 Does the player pass the subject-specific guideline on the basis of having played in a fully professional league?

No. This is a problem for women's football, but the guideline, arrived at by consensus, is quite clear on this point. Arguments that the player has played in a countries top league are not relevant. Playing in a top league that is not of an agreed fully professional status does not confer notability for any player.

2 Does the player pass the subject-specific guideline on the basis of having played senior international football in either a Tier 1 match or a competitive match organised by a regional confederation?

No. The international appearances made by this player for a team specifically selected as U20 for a tournament organised by a sub-confederation of the AFC.

2 Most importantly of all, does the player pass GNG, namely that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article?

No. A review of the sources in the article clearly shows that none of the sources are significant coverage, as none of them are really about her, they are all about teams she has played for, squads she has been called up for and matches in which she has featured. There is nothing to show that she has given any significant interviews or been the subject of specific coverage herself.

More importantly, a review of the sources in the article shows that the ultimate sources for a lot of the references are: The AFC, The Football Federation of Australia, Sydney FC (or other clubs against which she has competed), or Football NSW; i.e. obvious primary sources.

In both the article and this discussion, I can see reference to only one article of that could be deemed to be both significant coverage and independent of the subject, namely this. One relatively short article is simply insufficient to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Plessas

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

One article from the "local sport" pages where she is one of six mentioned young players (14 years old at the time), and one entry list of a tournament where she played with the Australian U-20 team (not the senior national team!). No evidence of notability here. She gets mentioned in match reports and the like, and may very well become a notable player, but doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTY yet. Prod removed by an editor who thinks that the U20 matches do satisfy NFOOTY, as they were against senior national teams, but my reading of the guideline is different. For NFOOTY, one needs to have played in a Tier 1 international match, and such a match is [40] is either between two A teams (the U20 team is not the A team obviously), or between an A teaml and a Scratch team (again, the U20 team is not a scratch team). The matches she played in do match the definition of a Tier 2 match (between an A team and "any other representative team"). Fram (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure yet. Someone who knows about the subject needs to comment on all of these. She might not pass NFOOTY, but is the sufficient depth in her NEXISTs to pass GNG anyway? Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the editor that removed the PROD on the basis that she competed at a Tier 1 international tournament. Looking at the paragraph at the top of page 9 of the FIFA Regulations mentioned by the nominator, my understanding is that the 2016 AFF Women's Championship was a Tier 1 competition. WP:NFOOTY does not specifically mention Tier 1 competitions, but playing in three matches of a Tier 1 competition should be enough to satisfy the intention of the guideline, even if her specific games do not count as Tier 1 matches. I have since expanded the article so that there is a bit more depth. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you indicate which of your many, many sources have any depth to them? She doen't meet NFOOTY as written, so we are back to WP:GNG to see if she is notable or not. I see many non-independent sources, many trivial ones (where she is listed as member of a squad or in a match report). She played a lot of matches with the youth teams, and these get reported upon in the media, but where is the actual significant, indepth, and independent coverage about her? Fram (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Putting GNG aside, to me it is illogical that every player who participated in that tournament is inherently notable except the Australian team members. It may not meet the strict definition of NFOOTY, but surely this is a case where there should be flexibility. ~~Also there is WP:EXISTS to consider.~~ AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that you should never put GNG aside. Nsports is an indication that GNG is likely met, not a guide to grant exceptions to the GNG. And I don't get why you link to Exists, this just seems to indicate that her existence (which isn't in doubt) doesn't mean that she is notable. In what way does Exists, which is only an essay anyway, give an argument to keep this article? Fram (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Including that was an error. I was editing on my phone at the time. The point remains that if NFOOTY does not expressly allow this, it should still be considered as meeting the purpose of NFOOTY, because she competed at a senior international tournament. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY – playing international football at youth level does not confer notability. Can be recreated if she ever wins a cap for the full Australian national team. Number 5 7 09:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the sources don't suggest she passes WP:GNG, and she hasn't played for the proper Australian team or in a fully professional league, so she fails WP:NFOOTY as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFOOTY and its perpetually incomplete list fails the majority of players in top women's leagues around the world. Check the group's archives for previous discussions on this topic. WP:BASIC met. Player plays in the top league in Australia - which is inline with other sports' notability guidelines. Hmlarson (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But that simply isn't true – looking at the guidelines for other widely-played team sports, WP:RLN and WP:NRU require playing in a fully-professional league, whilst WP:BASE/N both WP:NHOOPS has a list of only 12 leagues that grant notability to players; WP:NHOCKEY is the only team sport notability guideline to grant notability to players from non fully-professional leagues. Number 57 10:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Number 57: I'm sure you would agree though that 3 leagues is less than 12 (a quarter in fact)? Especially when the list excludes the top level leagues from countries ranked in the top 10 (Germany, France, England, Australia and Japan). Also you mentioned WP:NHOCKEY, so obviously there is an exception to the "rule". What's the problem with having Women's Football as part of that exception? --SuperJew (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, there are exceptions, but the claim was that this was "inline with other sports' notability guidelines" when it's clearly not in line with the vast majority of them. The problem with having different criteria for male and female footballers in a nutshell is because footballers' notability is linked to the sport's popularity as a spectator sport. Professional status is the strongest indicator we have of spectator interest because people paying to come to watch the players or to watch on TV is what pays their wages. If a league isn't fully-professional, this means there isn't sufficient spectator interest to make them so, which in turns means the players aren't likely to be notable. I can't see how it's justifiable to say a player in the FA WSL 1 is more notable than a player in the National League (neither of which are fully-professional) when attendances in the latter are more than 50% higher those of the former (1,743 in the National League in 2015–16 vs 1,128 in the FA WSL 1 in 2016). Number 57 18:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The difference is that the top-level league is the highest level she can play at, while the National League isn't. --SuperJew (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        But playing at the top level doesn't make someone notable – as you well know, we delete countless articles on male footballers who have played in the top divisions of various countries because their leagues are not fully professional (like this chap who has played in the Kenyan league). Number 5 7 20:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        "Simply isn't true", huh? In addition to your WP:NHOCKEY example, you can add WP:NCRIC to start. Examples of other sports-related notabilty guidelines that note highest level include WP:NTRACK and WP:NBADMINTON. See also WP:NEQUESTRIAN, WP:NSKATE for additional examples of "eligibility". NFOOTY is outdated + debated repeatedly. When was it last updated? Further, when I look for a guideline that would cover National Pro Fastpitch 1 - there are none, which also speaks to the bias and exclusion problems for articles about women's sport in general. Perhaps a better approach would be a notability guideline for women's sports.Hmlarson (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        We are talking about team sports, which excludes all of those examples you give except cricket. You are correct about WP:NCRIC not specifically ruling out players from semi-professional leagues, but it does restrict non-international players to those who have played in the leagues of the 10 countries with first class status. Number 5 7 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, you are talking about team sports notability guidelines. My original comment referenced "other sports notability guidelines". What's the last updated date for WP:NFOOTY? Hmlarson (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        6 February 2017. Number 5 7 22:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's an updated link to the "consensus" discussion behind the change for anyone wanting to review it (the link in the edit summary is outdated). Who knew it was so easy for some editors to change a notability guideline based on the "consensus" of a few? If that's the case, it should be pretty easy to update for women footballers as well, right? Hmlarson (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously it depends on whether you can get consensus from other editors to make that change. Number 5 7 23:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for football players, which probably needs to be tightened anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in the AFF Women's Championship which is a competition for senior teams. The fact that the Australia chose to send only under-20 players is their choice, and the tournament should still be regarded notability-wise as a senior A tournament. Brings to mind this discussion.

Furthermore she plays in a top level league. It is simply ridiculous to follow WP:NFOOTY with women footballers when only 3 leagues are listed at WP:FPL (which doesn't include the top level leagues from countries ranked in the top 10: Germany, France, England, Australia and Japan). --SuperJew (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @SuperJew: just in case you missed it the criteria states "in a competitive senior international match at confederation level" and the ASEAN Football Federation which organises the AFF Women's Championship is not at confederation level, it is a smaller organisation within the Asian Football Confederation which is probably why Australia send U20s and Japan U23s. Domdeparis (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: whether she meets NFOOTY or not is in the end irrelevant: NFOOTY is an indication that players are likely to meet the GNG. If you want to keep this article, provide the evidence that she actually has enough significant, indepth, non-routine coverage about herself to be considered wiki-notable. Fram (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds to me like an irrelevant argument when there are male players who've played just 2 minutes at the end of dead-rubber matches and are considered notable. --SuperJew (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When interpretations of rules differ , we ought to consider more general factors, such as the balance of WP. We do not need yet further interpretive broadening of the sports guideline DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Want to talk about balance? How about the fact that any male player who plays 2 minutes at the end of a dead-rubber match in the top level league in most countries is notable, while a female player who plays even 500 matches in the top level league of most countries isn't notable on that basis alone, but has to show satisfaction of a broader notability guideline? --SuperJew (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG with multitude of media coverage, particularly [41]. Nfitz (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an article from the "local sport" pages, see the grey header above the title: "Sport | Local Sport". If every young sporter who gets an article in the "local sport" pages is considered notable (just like every local baker, butcher, ... gets an article in the "local" section when they have some special action or a 5-year jubilee), then we can better just abolish the notability guidelines completely. Fram (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Local or not, it meets WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" - check. "Reliable" - check. "Source independent of the subject" - check. The word "local", "national", or "regional" don't appear in WP:GNG. If said butcher, baker, or candlestick maker has numerous brief mentions in national coverage as well, I'd agree they are notable. Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please tell me more about all the non-local coverage "stars" such as Remy Kalsrap, Kolinio Sivoki, Junior Albert, Serencio Juliaans, Paul Collins, etc. have. It's ridiculous that for male players assumed notability is much easier to obtain. --SuperJew (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Have I spoken in favour of these? Have I said that NSPORTS is strict enough as it is? I'm already discussing the way too leninent curling guidelines there, I have argued against looser standards for other sports, and probably the guidelines for male soccer (I presume these are male soccer players? I haven't checked) need tightening as well. How is any of this an argument about this article though? Fram (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, since in both cases we are talking about the appliance of the NFOOTY guideline. The guideline says that because a player played at least 1 second internationally or for a pro league, we assume notability. Yet this is obviously not true. There is no real reason a top-level league which isn't professional would have less coverage than a professional top-level league. If for example the W-League (Australia) goes pro tomorrow, you think there'll be a change in coverage (other than the temporary peak of articles covering the change to pro)? --SuperJew (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that NFOOTY is too permissive. How does keeping this article help with this? Not at all, of course, all it does is help making NFOOTY even less restrictive than it already is. It is indeed ridiculous that playing 1 minute for the Gibraltar or Andorra national team makes someone automatically notable, but that is a discussion to be had at Talk:Nsports. Fram (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        If that was a conversation which was actually happening, I'd agree with you, but as it's not and male footballers keep getting this automatic pass, I think female footballers should too. --SuperJew (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to point out, all these players referred to above (Remy Kalsrap, Kolinio Sivoki, Junior Albert, Serencio Juliaans, Paul Collins) have international caps. Any female player with a single international cap for any country would also pass WP:NFOOTY (e.g. Elsa Jacobsen, Larissa Šoronda). The issue is that the player we're discussing here does not have any (full) international caps. I'm not sure what the purpose of highlighting these players was, unless you aren't aware that full international players are deemed notable regardless of gender? Number 5 7 17:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Another example to further my point, the Dominican Republic's league according to WP:FPL is technically fully-pro. In reality, out of the bunch of players who play there who do have articles about them, the majority are stubs (with the majority of players in the league not having articles at all), and some of the clubs don't even seem to have full squad lists. Soccerway doesn't even list games for players there. The point here is not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the point is that professionalism of a league is the wrong way to determine assumed notability for player in it, and must be re-thought. --SuperJew (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Another point: The W-League definitely seems going to the direction of professional (see Guardian's and ABC's articles from today) (yes I know this would be counted in an article as WP:CRYSTALBALL, but for the sake of the discussion it seems legit to me to include), yet as I mentioned earlier, the change won't be the factor to change the coverage of the league. Which again shows that the means the professionalism of a league is a poor way to judge the assumed notability of the players in it. The whole of WP:NFOOTY needs an update. --SuperJew (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguably fails the over-broad SNG already and fails GNG. Discussions like these always tend to have editors stretch the word "significant" beyond all reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a fully professional league or played international football. Hack (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Simione001 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to do enough to pass GNG for me. Should the league become fully professional, she'd pass once she'd played a game. This isn't going to change the level of news coverage available for her. - J man708 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good constructive work has been carried out on the article with more than adequate sourcing.--Ipigott (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per above keep comments, especially SuperJew's. This article fails WP:NFOOTY, but just might make the general notability guidelines due to the substantial coverage the subject has received as an Australian female footballer. However I would not be totally opposed for a delete as well as this article also seems to fall under WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:FOOTY. If you disagree, please provide the best WP:RS that mentions her and/or proof that she meets one of the requirements of the standard. You can refer to a diff from above or whoever above made the best arguments. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided [42] above. Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry source is too local. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - meats WP:GNG, via significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but barely because few of these articles [but I do think enough] constitute significant coverage. --MATThematical (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a few reasons. 1) I believe the coverage demonstrated just gets her over the line in terms of GNG. 2) NFOOTY and its fully-pro rule needs a rethink and has done for some time, sure the current bright line rule is the easiest to adjudicate, but it doesn't always get the best results (point in case with the W-League and some other women's leagues like the women's Bundesliga). 3) Even if you disagree with the first two points, surely an effort should be made to combat Wikipedia's systematic bias, which has a dearth of coverage for women's sports relative to men's. Jenks24 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plessas played one or more games in a professional league (Australian W-League)[43]. Delete. Australian W-League is a "top level league which is not fully professional". - TheMagnificentist 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is mostly local, with most consisting of mentions in routine sports reports. The significant coverage for GNG doesn't seem to exist at this time. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the subject has played in a fully professional league, so it wouldn't pass WP:NFOOTY. And yes, the SNGs for sports need to be tightened in general and I would be happy to support that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:52, 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 speedy delete. Part of a vandalism spree by a large collection of sockpuppet accounts. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Animal Belt

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

A quick look at a Google News search indicates that the subject is probably not notable. J 947 04:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete' as basically made-up. Pichpich (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and close this. I just deleted and salted The Stray Animal Belt created and fought over by many socks or meats. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've blocked everyone related to this. See User talk:RonnieThaRocket#Blocked for the list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:50, 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. No evidence of notability, via significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, has been presented during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Talore

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found; sources used in the article are interviews, industry publicity materials, and directory listings. The award listed is not significant and well known, thus failing WP:PORNBIO.

The most recent AfD (2015) closed as no consensus; I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am going to assume that subject passes WP:PORNBIO having won a FAME Award, but as I'm an ignorant virgin in this subsection of WP:NBIO, do ping me, if you believe I am wrong. — Sam Sailor 19:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor: correct; this is a fan-based award, and thus falls too far short of meeting PORNBIO. From the linked article:
The Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Awards (or F.A.M.E. Awards) were created in 2006 by Genesis, Adam & Eve, WantedList, Playboy Radio and AVN^[1] as a means for the general public to vote for their favorite adult film stars, directors, movies, and companies.^[2]^[3]^[4] The Awards were presented during the Erotica LA show at the Los Angeles Convention Center.^[3]

References

^ "Sponsors of the 2006 FAME Awards". Web.archive.org. 2014-10-16. Archived from the original on October 16, 2014. Retrieved 2015-08-20.
^ Steve Javors (2007-06-16). "F.A.M.E. Awards Receives Milestone Vote". XBIZ. Retrieved 2007-06-24.
^ ^a ^b "About the 2006 FAME Awards". Archived from the original on December 25, 2010. Retrieved 2015-08-20.^{[dead link]}
^ "About the 2008 F.A.M.E. Awards". thefameawards.com. Archived from the original on 16 October 2014. Retrieved 21 August 2015.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @K.e.coffman: Do we have precedent on that or is it opinion? — Sam Sailor 03:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor: Fan-based awards are by their nature not "significant". Here's a prior AfD on a subject with scene-related and fan-based awards that closed as "delete": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Darlin (2nd nomination). Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect if your opinion is that Fan-based awards are by their nature not "significant", but in both previous AFD nominations of this article, as well as multiple others, winning the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award has been used as an argument for "keep" in discussions that closed as "keep". The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Darlin (2nd nomination) you link to does not mention the FAME Award. It does have a very thoughtful comment by John Pack Lambert. — Sam Sailor 04:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I have recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject here has won "a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which has been copmared in the past to the People's Choice Awards) "Favorite Female Rookie Starlet", which is similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & the XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless, and, despite repeated assertions by those that don't like this genre of adult film awards, there is no prohibition on "fan-based awards" in PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to the "People's Choice" awards is spurious; the awardgivers made the comparison on a promotional page, and even though that may have been picked up on a few unreliable pages, it cannot be an indication of significance, or even of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meet of WP:PORNBIO #1. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 17:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There don't seem to be any new issues from the previous AfD. Passes PORNBIO#1. 210 adult films is a strong indicator of notability all by itself. Article has 25 inline citations. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no serious argument that the subject passes the GNG: all of the substantive sources in the article are promotional pages and promotional interviews given to retailer-vendor associated sites with no reputation whatever for factchecking and accuracy. Award reports and announcements sourced to the awardgiver are not independent and do not count towards notability. This leaves only the single FAME Award, unsupported by other coverage. FAME Awards apparently fail the "well-known and significant" standard of PORNBIO; even the article on the award itself has no genuinely independent sourcing. The FAME award was a short-lived, astroturfed ceremony ceremony without a legitimate underlying awardgiver. AVN, its principal sponsor, has been trying for quite a few years to create a fan-award-analogue to its own AVN Awards. in hopes of generating revenue from the awards ceremony itself and a possible cable TV broadcast. But its efforts in this line have failed (aside from this award, the "Sex Awards" have come and gone in even fewer years, while the "AVN Fan Awards" have failed once and been "rebooted".) Without any independent coverage, the FAME Award cannot be said to be "well-known" or "significant"; even if the award were somehow seen as a technical pass of PORNBIO, that would clearly be outweighed by the failure to even approach meeting GNG standards. The number of inline citations is irrelevant, since the sources they cite are neither independent nor reliable. The number of videos a subject has appeared in has long been deprecated as an indicator of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the number of career films, here is the link you gave me before. The title of the section was "Invalid criteria". The top of the page states "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability criteria." and "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion." The words "notability criteria" are wikilinked to Category:Wikipedia_notability_criterias. According to Wiktionary, the word "criterias" is "non-standard" and "proscribed". So first of all I don't think we should put much weight on deprecated "criterias", much less from a disputed guideline. For the rest, I repost the statement I made before.
Thanks for providing the link, because it allows looking at the quality of the argument. "Number of films (e.g., 'any actor with X films is notable'). Pornographic films can be made in a few days, thus performers can appear in dozens of films per year." This is an argument based on production of films, rather than what Wikipedia cares about, which is attention given to the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 inline citations shows that there is reliable material available to satisfy WP:DEL9 (BLP). Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is, frankly, ridiculous on its face. The number of citations is wholly unrelated to their reliability and independence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation, what I've said is solid. Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on translation, I do not think that word (reliable) means what you think it means. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The idea that one can't confirm that a person has won an award by using a citation from the award giver's website is a laughable line of commentary that's unfortunately been used and dismissed again & again at AfD...mostly by those that don't like this genre of adult film awards. There's also no evidence at all that the "FAME Awards apparently fail the 'well-known and significant' standard of PORNBIO". Guy1890 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man argument. No one has argued that the FAME Award is unverifiable. The argument is that citation/sourcing of an award to the award(giver) website is not independent, and is therefore mot evidence of notability (and, for that matter, evidence of being well-known or significant). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with using an awarding organization's website as a citation for who won which award, period end of story. Guy1890 (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no one said there was, which is why there was no point to your bringing it up. But if an award in principally reported on the awardgiver's site, or on sites associated with the awardgiver, it's very, very hard to make a case that the award is well-known or significant. Exclamation point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's sheer & utter nonsense...what you continually try to do at AfD with just about every, single, solitary adult film award organization is to imply that absolutely none of them are "well-known and significant industry awards", but that's neither new nor relevant here. These tired, old arguments have been previously made & rejected by the community as it relates to this specific award organization in question here. Guy1890 (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, that you have to resort to an uncivil personal attack underscores the bankruptcy of your argument. You are plainly wrong. The AFD you cite determined that the FAME award was notable. Being notable is a far lower standard than the "well-known and significant" requirement in the governing SNG. The argument that winning a "notable" award is sufficient to meet the PORNBIO SNG (or, for that matter, ANYBIO) has been rejected over and over and over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- re "Reply to the usual hand-waving, bloviating nonsense", please see WP:No personal attacks.

Additionally, most of the keep votes argue that the award was significant and thus the PORNBIO is met. That it was indeed significant is a matter of some debate. However, the award alone, per outcomes of recent AfDs, have not been sufficient justification to keep the article. Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_October_9#Vanessa_Veracruz, where the matter was reviewed and the article subsequently deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG NOONE argues differently, a disputed and extremely tenuous technical pornbio pass is not the free pass it was in the past. Recent consensus is that porn blps have the same requirement for proper sources as other blps. This clearly fails that. 09:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above - Has won a notable and signicient award, Meets PORNBIO as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The discussions over the deleted Vanessa Veracruz article obviously do not apply to this situation here, since the award there (the XBIZ "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" Award) was a relatively new & likely minor niche award category at the XBIZ Awards. Guy1890 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The award in question was: "* 2006 F.A.M.E. Award winner – Favorite Female Rookie Starlet (tied with Alektra Blue)". It's even less significant than an XBIZ award. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've already basically heard your own personal opinion on the award that's relevant to this AfD (which is obviously different than the award in question in the Vanessa Veracruz discussions)...it's the same no matter which adult industry award is in play in any AfD related to this genre. Guy1890 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The FAME award is certainly reliably sourced, but I don't believe it confers notability. The other sources currently in the article are worthless IMO (interviews, IAFD listing), and I guess nobody here claims otherwise, either. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bishonen. Montanabw^(talk) 08:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the available sources don't cover the subject in enough depth to satisfy the notability requirements. Hut 8.5 21:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Institute for Social Policy and Understanding

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

I believe the reason given in the removed PROD is valid: "No references except its own web site. No evidence of notability. Promotional posting." Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: The organization comports to standards of notability for organizations and companies as its research has been cited in reliable, independent, third-party sources:

"An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)."

These sources include mainstream news media,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] which are considered "reliable sources", and thus comport to Wikipedia's standards of establishing notability beyond "trivial sources." Depth of coverage standards are also met as the organization has been referenced in "multiple independent sources." Finelinebilly (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

I've reviewed the sources given here and on the article talk page, and from what I see they tend to just name-drop this organization's name, or maybe quote a representative of it, without saying how this organization is notable as an organization. If they have conduced accepted research and/or studies, that's not clear from the sources I have seen. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Here are some select quotations from the independent, third party, reliable sources that cite the organization's research and studies:

"The Institute of Social Policy and Understanding, a research group that studies various aspects of Muslim American life, found that at least 128 anti-Sharia law or anti-foreign law bills have been introduced since 2011."(Buzzfeed News)

"Surveys by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and the Pew Research Center suggest that the attitudes of United States Muslims about country and community are similar to those of adherents of other religions." (New York Times)

"As a result, according to one poll taken in January of 2016, Muslim support for Clinton is higher than among any other religious group measured. The poll, taken by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a research group focusing on American Muslims, showed that 40 percent of Muslims supported Clinton, compared to 30 percent of Jews and 13 percent of Catholics and Protestants."Five Thirty Eight

"According to the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a think tank that focuses on the American Muslim community, the number of Muslims registered to vote lags behind other faith traditions as well as the general population." (Chicago Tribune)

"The event — Islamophobia: Politics, Priorities and Prejudice in 2016 — was organized by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a nonprofit founded in 2002 that conducts research aimed at empowering American Muslims to increase community involvement and participation in democracy in the United States." (Michigan Daily) Finelinebilly (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references just seem to be in passing. "Here's a story about a big event. Mr. such-and-such, from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding says...", and thats it. There needs to be sources that talk about the group itself, not just quotes from news articles from its members. ValarianB (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete @ValarianB please see the above 5 quotes in which news media describe the organization before citing their research. This research institution has been conducting research for over 15 years. Like any other legitimate research institute, notable news media report on their research and other users have demonstrated this is the case above. Furthermore, as the user posted above, this organization's news coverage meets the "depth of coverage" guidelines in that the organization has been referenced in "multiple independent sources." This page needs to stay. Thes0ciologist (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thes0ciologist: All that does is explain what the organization is, without saying why it is notable as an organization. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: The notability criteria are met because the institute has conducted research that has been cited by multiple, independent sources. See notability for organizations and companies Thes0ciologist (talk)

@Thes0ciologist: Any organization or individual can conduct research, but that doesn't tell us why this organization is an authority on this subject. Is their research independently peer-reviewed? 331dot (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: This is a very different question, I think you are moving the goal post now. Do you agree that we have established that the organization is notable, per Wikipedia's standards? Thes0ciologist (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)— Thes0ciologist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My position remains unchanged. I haven't said anything different than I told the other supporter above. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete @331dot: I have stated my case above. Your claim for deletion is that the references are "in passing." This is irrelevant because the Institution meets "Depth of Coverage" guidelines by being referenced by "multiple independent sources" that are referenced above. Finelinebilly (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finelinebilly: You are conflating two different things. What is needed are multiple independent sources that each discuss this in depth; multiple sources does not itself equal in depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Once again, notability guidelines state as follows: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability."Finelinebilly (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)— Finelinebilly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Finelinebilly: Now you are cherry-picking. The rest of that paragraph is "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.". The coverage cited here is all trivial; it provides no context as to why this organization's opinions or studies carry any weight. As ValarianB stated above, no sources have been offered that discuss this organization itself in depth. I appreciate this discussion, but I think it unlikely either one of us will change the other's mind, so I will most likely have little to add after this. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for admins. FYI 6 of "Thes0ciologist"s 7 edits are to either this deletion discussion or to the article, while "Finelinebilly" is the creator of the article in question. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 13:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just coming to this discussion and need to take some time to look into the page, its history, and issues. A cursory glance suggests there are plenty of major news sources that have cited the organization, and that should probably be enough to establish notability. What I don't know is how much the wording of the page and its historical wording have been too self-promotional. If that were the case, it seems the best solution would be to edit, not delete. Make a better page of it, with edits from someone not directly associated with the organization, or allow some time and give suggestions for how the page could be made more appropriate for Wikipedia inclusion. zadignose (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Wait... Before posting the above comment, I probably should have looked a little more. Just a little more looking into the organization, and it seems its notability can not be doubted. Just a google search for "site:cnn.com Institute for Social Policy and Understanding" turns up an extraordinary number of articles that expressly source this organization's research, or that are penned for CNN by fellows of the organization. That alone probably makes it more notable than countless articles and stubs that remain in Wiki. A similar search for "site:nytimes.com Institute for Social Policy and Understanding" shows literally thousands of pages on the New York Times site that reference this organization in one way or another. Notable, for sure! Does not an article like this-->(https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/us/a-peaceful-muslim-majority-in-the-us-tarred-by-acts-of-a-few.html?_r=0), which sites the organization alongside Brookings Institution and Pew Research Center, strongly suggest notability? I haven't got the time to look through hundreds of such articles, but I think just a cursory search lays the debate on notability to rest.

The article's references section is actually too long to be reasonable for an article with little content, and that's almost certainly because someone is trying to establish notability. The overload of references are there to stop deletion. After we reach on consensus on this (Do Not Delete!), most of the references could go, or they could go to the talk page quite soon and take them out of the public eye if they aren't referenced in the body of the article.

Notable, for sure. If it was too promotional in some earlier version of the page, it doesn't seem so right now. It's just too stubby. It needs more content, with an objective, non-opinionated phrasing. Anyway, that's all about editing, not deletion. I can't see any strong reason to delete this. zadignose (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zadignose: No one disputes that there are lots of name-drops of this organization, but there needs to be more in depth coverage, as I state in prior posts(and won't take up space repeating). 331dot (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that sources written by "fellows of the organization" would not be an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable thing for a research organization is to have its research routinely cited by major media outlets, and this organization has that in spades. It would be nice to find a more informative profile of the organization somewhere, from a third-party, but I don't think it's necessary. With sources such as Fox News repeatedly "noting" and citing the organization, with brief descriptions such as "a collaboration of scholars in the field of Islamic studies who served as advisors to the poll...", this is a notable organization. The quoted section of the guideline on notability, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability" is relevant. It's included for cases like this where we're not going with just one or two brief mentions. E.g., if the only thing notable about a guy named Karl Schmidt was that he was mentioned in one article about a tornado, and the only thing stated was "Farmer Karl Schmidt witnessed the incident from his back porch," then that wouldn't establish notability. Here, it seems to me, the dilemma isn't notability, but just the difficulty of building a more substantial article without fluff.zadignose (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This organization's research being cited doesn't mean much unless we know why it's being cited. What makes this organization an authority on the subjects that it researches? 331dot (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on a repeated tangential issue In re: "What makes this organization an authority on the subjects that it researches?" This is not relevant. We don't have to certify the organization. Even if the organization had no expertise or authority, even if everything they said was certifiable bunk, that would not impact on the question of notability, and it would not be grounds for article deletion. It's not for us to judge whether all major media outlets should rely on a particular organization's research. The fact that they do routinely credit the organization makes it notable.zadignose (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly free to see it as unimportant; I disagree. It goes to notability. Any group can publicize its research or get its name dropped in the media. That doesn't mean the group itself has in depth coverage or that it is notable. I realize we won't see eye to eye on this, and I appreciate the conversation. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "multiple independent sources...to establish notability" clause is to be read as "several independent sources are needed that on their own each may give just a small piece of unique information, but when combined can result in something more substantial than a permastub". That is not the case here though, seeing as the same short definition is repeated over and over again in the presented sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, specifically fails the WP:SIGCOV criterion of WP:GNG. Some of the editors above have a fundamental lack of understanding "depth of coverage". Depth of coverage means that there is enough coverage, that is "enough information", about the subject in order to enable us to write more than a stubby one-liner. The presented sources, however, discuss this organisation in nothing more than one-liners, a so-called "passing mention". Being cited is not the same as being described and it is the description that is of most value to the creation of wiki-articles, because that is how we can reproduce substantial amounts of information. Unless independent sources are given that elaborate on for example the organisation's history, this page has got to go. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:07, 3 March 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. For now. Sources are indeed available, as listed on the article's talk. If the article's condition does not improve and a strong case for deletion can be made, it can always be renominated. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phonaesthetics

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. Little to no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Existing coverage consists essentially of simple definitions of the term with limited examples. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Categories do benefit from having main articles (imo) and we do have Category:Phonaesthetics, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it's not a major topic in linguistics or philosophy – nor, I think, in literary studies – it is a topic. Sources exist, and I plan to list some at Talk:Phonaesthetics. I will allow, though, that it is arguable whether e.g. a paper on the phonaesthetics of Tolkien's poetry is primary or secondary with regards to phonaesthetics as a topic. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To follow up on Cnilep, it seems to be a bona fide main article in need of improvement, rather than a non-notable topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, euphony and cacophony must be addressed, but it certainly needs expansion and improvement. --MaeseLeon (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AB Custos

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

Company ceased to exist in 2006,[44] I am unable to find any reference that would merit significance. — kashmiri ^TALK 02:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Once notable, always notable. The company was listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange [45]. It's listed in Nationalencyklopedin [46]. There are several non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, here are a few: [47][48][49][50]. But, perhaps the article should be moved to "AB Custos (1937–2004)" like the Swedish article, since what AFAIK is a new company with the same name is aquiring part of Metro International [51].Sjö (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer seemingly emerging consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to cement consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does appear to meet WP:CORP although the article could do with improvement to include many of the sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:CORP.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:CORP.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 7 March 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) 04:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn Resort Goa

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

WP:MILL hotel. Nothing substantial from independent sources, just booking sites. Article is written in a promotional non-encyclopedic tone Ajf773 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are literally hundreds of hotels in Goa. This one stands out not at all. All the references I find are just typical travel guides, hotel directories, corporate websites, etc. Not notable.Glendoremus (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 3 March 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 all. Kurykh (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Darling

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

Non-notable professional wrestler who hasn't competed in a major promotion (WWE, TNA, ROH, AAA, NJPW, Dragon Gate etc. etc.) and shows no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Only sources are Facebook, Twitter and Cagematch bio. JTtheOG (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a quick note that the link to this AfD for Solo Darling appears at the top of Damien Grundy's WP entry. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EricEnfermero: I'm nominating a few more similar articles per WP:BUNDLE. :) I just hadn't listed them on this page when you noticed. JTtheOG (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are made by the same user and are similarly non-notable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these, I also added two more articles to the list which were created by the same user for wrestlers who are currently signed with WWE but are unsourced, non-notable and WP:TOOSOON, and two others whose only notability was appearing on Tough Enough. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participant nominated more articles for deletion, seemingly without permission of original nominator. Relisting to elicit discussion on all articles in question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This is a huge number of non-notable wrestlers that we have no reason to have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to cement consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the above. No independent, reliable sources to support notability.Glendoremus (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Having a look through some of these names, it appears all of them fail WP:NBIO. Ajf773 (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – None appear to meet GNG. J 947 18:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per copyvio. They all are copypasted from Wikia's professional wrestling wiki without attribution. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 10:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Weak Keep on Solo Darling - She's an established member of the ROH roster, as her ROH profile shows. Also a Google search limited to the sources WP:PW/RS shows a number of articles about her time in ROH. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 09:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a few keep Solo Darling and Taylor Made (wrestler) won the Shine Championship Johnny Moss (wrestler) Rhia O'Reilly all others can go — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.159.195 (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of the articles meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. User:WikiLeon was right; most of these articles were copy-pasted from Wikia's wrestling pages. WereWolf (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WikiLeon and WP:GNG. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Even if some are notable there are problems with copyright infringement.LM2000 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them As they are copy-pasted from fan-made website. Nickag989^talk 12:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot - copyright issues and notabilty issues MPJ-DK 00:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per above. Nikki♥311 23:32, 7 March 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) 04:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Tourism Journalist Association

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

Fails GNG. One non-RS source and a second RS source. An additional check for information about this organization finds only a couple mentions in passing, but no substantive articles on the organization itself. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added some sources I found at id:Indonesian Tourism Journalist Association. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - finding 'easy' english refs online on this subject is somewhat unrealistic in expectation. There may well be many refs in the Indonesian media that are not directly titled. JarrahTree 09:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Organisation need to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. At present, I am unable to see the in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is also WP:TOOSOON as the organisation was formed in January 2017. The sources in Bahasa Indonesia (such as [52], [53],[54]) are essentially brief press releases about the formation of the organisation (all of them btw are around the same date). Others such as this are quotes by the founder. I am unable to see the indepth coverage here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage including in Indonesian merely confirms it exists rather than establishing WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 1 March 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) 04:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starcore

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

This article fails WP:N. 50504F (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~This proposal was made by a sock of the blocked user Fmadd~~ 86.186.169.144 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:50504F is not a sock puppet (see User talk:50504F#Unblock request) 50504F (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: BOZ (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete - A minor footnote in Marvel history. There are three Starcores listed on this page, but the page itself is only linked by four articles. Those articles can give the term enough context that a full article (or bullet on a rather crufty list) isn't needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Argento Surfer's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 6 March 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) 04:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Rising Phoenix World Championships

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

Non-notable sports competition. Violates WP:Sports event (parent article was Prod'ed). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following article for the same reasons:[reply]

It's the highest professional female bodybuilding competition on the planet. It's not "non-notable". AHC300 (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The parent article, Rising Phoenix World Championships, has now been undeleted. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @AHC300: if you can supply a reference to support your claim that it is "the highest professional female bodybuilding competition on the planet", then I think the article should be kept. The article does not currently have independent sources to establish notability. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 4 March 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) 04:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whispers of Life

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

Delete. Article about a short film, where the only claim of notability is winning an award at film festival which is not large or prominent enough to constitute an automatic notability claim. It would certainly be enough if the article were sourced properly, but of the five sources here one is the film's own self-published website, one is IMDb and three are non-notable and unreliable WP:BLOGS. A film, short or long, gets a Wikipedia article when it's the subject of reliable source coverage in real media that supports an WP:NFILM pass -- but if the strongest evidence of media attention you can show is Homorazzi and Vancitybuzz, that's simply not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highest Grossing Telugu Films (Actors)

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

per WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:NOT. Seems to be developed on the lines of List of highest-grossing Telugu films. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 04:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of highest-grossing Indian films under same reasons as List of highest-grossing Telugu films. Seems to beanother way of listing same content. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. Unsourced list-cruft. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure list-cruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:12, 8 March 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) 04:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Photos

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

Shelved movie. Article was made before filming commenced, violating WP:NYF. Also filming never started as the project was dropped Jupitus Smart 14:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM. If there is any info that can be merged somewhere that is fine but I couldn't really find any in the article as it stands. MarnetteD|Talk 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM; if the film has indeed been dropped then it's highly likely that this will never be notable Spiderone 12:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 7 March 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) 04:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria Teens Chef Hunt

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

Non-notable TV show. Cannot find any sources for the show. Article created by "first winner." reddogsix (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI self-promotion. No evidence of notability under WP:TVSHOW or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article which fails WP:TVSHOW. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:16, 3 March 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) 04:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Thorsell

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

A search turned up YouTube, IMDb and some social networks, but nothing which looked to me like a WP:RS. No independent coverage, fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model lacking reliable source citations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:28, 5 March 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) 04:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Webster (ice hockey)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG by only WP:ROUTINE sources. Won a minor leadership award in the OHL but no preeminent honors to qualify for WP:NHOCKEY criterion #4. Yosemiter (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the GNG or our inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Amateur player of no particular accomplishments; fails NHOCKEY, no sources which satisfy the GNG. Ravenswing 20:25, 3 March 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. Undisclosed paid editing NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Friedhoff

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

The only coverage of the subject in reliable sources that I can find is in this Forbes piece. That's not really got much detail about him (as opposed to the drug being researched) and with only a single piece of coverage, WP:BIO is some way from being met. SmartSE (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:26, 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Parsons

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

Fails WP:GNG with only a few WP:ROUTINE sources. Very young, so WP:TOOSOON applies. Has played for the U17 USA National Team, but still fails WP:NHOCKEY as he has never played for the senior national team (criterion #6). Yosemiter (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not reached the level of coverage or competition to be a notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 4 March 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 SNOW Withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Keepers Friend

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PRODUCT. This article is simply an advert complete with product comparisons and usage instructions. The only coverage I could find were advertisements and happy homemaker/life hack type articles. If there were an article on SerVass Labratories, its manufacturer, this could be redirected. Jbh ^Talk 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Withdrawn by nominator~~ I obviously still disagree that this is notable, per Wikipedia's guidelines, but obviously everyone disagrees. No point in dragging this out for a week and wasting everyone's time. I have no objection to a snow close as keep. Jbh ^Talk 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC) The withdraw does not do anything since there is still a delete vote and I have not changed my opinion but I do not object to snow either. Last edited: 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why nominate it then? I specifically asked for help doing that myself, and you "helpfully" did it for me instead. Now you're withdrawing, making my case even more untenable. The article is trash, it fails WP:GNG miseably, yet people below are basically shilling for it by saying that GNG is wrong(!). Shouldn't they go start their own website with lowered standards? This is nuts.184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is heading towards a Snow Keep based on what I see as really bad arguements. Some things are pointless. This AfD is one of those things. If someone other than an IP who has been bludgeoning the AfD and narrowly avoiding a block for attacks and disruption agreed with my assessment it might be worth continuing. In this case three admins and several very experienced editors think that this is some exception to what I understand to be Wikipedia's notability criteria. No one is going to close this as other than keep. Sometimes the Wikipedia community collectively makes what one thinks are bad, foolish or flat out wrong decisions and one must simply let it go and role with it - this is, in my opinion, one of those time and I see no point in forcing seven days of debate for a forgone conclusion. Jbh ^Talk 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC) My crappy mood is showing through. Sorry. Last edited: 00:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the same conclusion I came to. The first 10 pages of Google Search have 3 forums, two blogs and ninety-five websites trying to sell the stuff. Searches in books, news and news archives, which I undertook as part of my due diligence in deleting unsourced parts of the article, are all similar. In doing so, I also noticed that Beurt SerVass doesn't have an article. I'm not a fan by any means, but that would actually be notable. Ditto the company bearing his name, I suppose.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question – @Jbhunley: I noticed that you removed the product comparison content from the article (diff) and then restored it (diff), just prior to nominating the article for deletion (diff). Then in your nomination, you base part of your deletion rationale upon the content you restored. Why? Sorry, but on the surface, this comes across as a potential bit of gaming to further qualify deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: I started pulling out things which I thought were problems but I quickly saw that I would end up effectivly stubbing it - without sources to support notability. So I restored what I cut away, so I would not be accused of gaming by butchering the article before nominating it, and nominated it for deletion. Jbh ^Talk 03:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I had done in the first place, only to be accused of "blanking" the page. You remove a shoddy ref and it's allied claim, then another claim that rested on the ref has to go. That should say a lot about the strength of the article.184.145.42.19 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG, albeit on a weaker level per sources I have found so far. See below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Addendum: Another source below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Accuracy improved in auger filling". Packaging World.

Only one of those are what could be considered significant coverage as is reqired by GNG;

IBJ Bar Keepers Friend parent lands new headquarters normal course of business announcement
Huffington Post How To Remove Scratches From Dishes: Bar Keepers Friend Product placement this is not an article with reporting as such/Mostly a reprint of Lifehacker blog entry [55].
Old Home Journal "Its a great old product. A scouring powder that really works..." Advert/passing mention.
Times Union - a blog titled Removing soap scum from shower doors – 4 methods and a winner!! - really?
Homebrewers handbook "Bar Keepers Friend is a general cleaning agent that works particularly well on stainless steel..." Passing mention/product use instructions

None of these actually talk about the product and all of them, as well as the many similar articles, simply say it is a good cleaner, maybe mention some ingredients, and say what it can be used for. The Allbusiness article, on the other hand, does have some in depth coverage - it is the one good article mentioned in the previous AfD - however it is insufficient on its own to get this past WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 03:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 04:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I would just add that, to my eye, "Allbusiness" (which is really lifted from "Indiana Business Journal") is actually the single worst reference here. There's no way that shlock can be considered neutral, as companies pay to be listed on the site, and presumably in the previous print incarnation. WP:GNG states that "sources need editorial integrity". No byline, no criticism, no ref. I mean, right???184.145.42.19 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Business Magazine seems to have been legit "Indiana Business magazine is published by Indianapolis-based Curtis Publishing Inc., which continues to produce the Saturday Evening Post. Curtis also published various state business guides, directories and community-profile magazines."^[56] Do you have any evidence it was a "pay-to-play" PR shop or otherwise not independent? Jbh ^Talk 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll dig for some. In the meantime, I'd point you back at your own quote. "...business guides, directories and community-profile newspapers." I've worked for such a company here in Ottawa on two separate occasions, delivering flyers, phone books, the "Auto Trader", etc. What they produce is not "news" by any stretch. Also, in that vein, media consolidation has largely forced any firm with a printing press to run anything through in hopes of making a buck. Oh, it may also be of interest that the editor in 1994 was Cory SerVaas. In case that seems like a coincidence (in spite of the uncommon name), Cory was preceded in the job by (wait for it...) Beurt SerVaas! I'd say that's a bit conflict-y, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saturday_Evening_Post#Editors 184.145.42.19 (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything to reinforce my direct allegation, but I believe my last point above puts the nail in the coffin of that particular ref. We cannot assume editorial integrity of a magazine that says wonderful things about a consumer product, when they're both produced by the same owners! That shouldn't even be controversial.184.145.42.19 (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Here are two book references I found from Google Scholar:

Book references

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=dOS38515sg4C&dq=%22bar+keepers+friend%22&q=Ber+Keepers+Friend#v=onepage&q=Bar%20Keepers%20Friend&f=false “Mary Ellen’s Guide to Good Enough Housekeeping” by Mary Ellen Pinkham and Dale Burg Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0-312-28567-1

https://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=nkyrOr_jpEEC&dq=%22bar+keepers+friend%22&q=Bar+Keepers+Friend#v=snippet&q=Bar%20Keepers%20Friend&f=false“2,001 Amazing Cleaning Secrets” by Jeff Bredenberg Readers Digest Association, 2004 ISBN 0-7621-0489-9

Suppose that Wikipedia decides to have an article about a product. When you Google for the product name, you will find some articles that talk about how to use the product, maybe even some sites offering to *sell* the product. Neither of these would argue against us having an article. The 300,000 Google hits (including reliable sources, and many sites not affiliated with the manufacturer) appear sufficient to indicate this is a respectable cleaning product that is widely used, even when you ignore every sales site. See also Category:Cleaning products. This turns out to be a large category with many individual products such as Ajax cleanser and Comet (cleanser). See also Cleaning agent, List of cleaning agents and 20 Mule Team Borax. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of that, however, is significant coverage per GNG. In Mary Ellen's Guide to Good Enough Housekeeping a dozen passing mentions do not add up to significant coverage. The other book you link, 2001 Amazing Cleaning Secrets has no preview available. Does it have significant coverage or is it just more uses for the product? As to the rest WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jbh ^Talk 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the Bredenberg link for '2001 Amazing Cleaning Secrets' and it should now open to show you the hits. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I only see three mentions. One that is a 'how to use', one which just mentions its name and an index entry. Am I missing something? Jbh ^Talk 05:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would expect a notable cleaning product to be mentioned favorably in books about cleaning, assuming there is no corporate connection or hint of advertising. (Unclear how a cleaning product could achieve any other type of fame). On page 44 Bredenberg treats this product as the equivalent of Comet (cleanser) for a particular task. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reading other articles in the list provided by NA1k, it seems there are many ways. Advertising, controversies, mergers and acquisitions resulting in disparate use of names in different markets, etc. Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with how a cleaner is used, or how well it works.184.145.42.19 (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in my mind, the two references provided in the last AFD were enough to establish WP:GNG. Since then, several other references have been added to the article, and it has been improved. Nfitz (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You like the "Indiana Business" magazine ref, despite that publication being owned by the same family who owns the product in this article? I don't think that qualifies as "editorial integrity" per WP:GNG.184.145.42.19 (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Substitute in this reference then, that someone has added[57]. I saw no end of references to the product running Google News, in various non-linked publications. Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find a Q&A section with answers from a Home Depot manager to be reliable. They sell the stuff.184.145.42.19 (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They sell other products too. I don't see why they'd be particularly biased. Nfitz (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You not seeing a thing /= a ref being kosher. A Home Depot store manager, recommended a product Home Depot does sell, not one they don't. This is not rocket surgery.184.145.42.19 (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think WP:GNG has been met, and this is a keep. Nfitz (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted "Keep". Do you think saying it more often will make your argument stronger?184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to respond to everything? Do you think if you get the last word against everyone who disagrees with you, it will make your argument stronger? Nfitz (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Another option is to merge this to List of cleaning products. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Forgive my noobness (and me for using that word), but you want to merge an article into a list? How would that work? Would it be a red link? Everything else there has a standalone article.184.145.42.19 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, everything on that list DOES have an article. So why are we discussing this one in particular? Sometimes WP:Other Stuff Exists for a reason! Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've adequately understood my question. What I'm asking is how you merge a namespace with a list. As you seem to have the world by the arse, feel free to grace me with your acumen.184.145.42.19 (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your question. I simply was surprised that all those articles exist, and am even more confused why anyone thinks that this one should be any different. Fix the article, fine - it clearly has issues. But delete it? I don't see any reason to be rude - it's your tendency to do so, that gets you into trouble. Nfitz (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you really didn't. First off, I said everything on that list has an article. Why would you yell my own assertion back at me? Secondly, "Good grief" is not politeness. If you find the word "arse" to be offensive in a context where it didn't refer to you, that's your issue. I use all the words in the OED, buddy. Now, what was that about rudeness???184.145.42.19 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to realise why you keep getting banned. You've got a major attitude problem! Nfitz (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for your mudslinging, OK? If you want to keep pushing the ad hominem button, have the courtesy to do it on my talk page, or yours, or anywhere else. You're being ridiculous.184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being ridiculous? You took offence at "good grief". How is that possibly anything, anyone would ever take offence at? It was merely an interjection of surprise. No, this isn't the place for mudslinging - but I'm surprised one would start slinging mud, and then say that. Nfitz (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I wrote in 2012, this is an iconic product of very long standing and I have difficulty imagining how we are improving the encyclopedia if we remove this. I would find the available sources sufficient to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Iconic" is a weasel word and/or puffery. As I said elsewhere, I had literally never heard of this stuff until happening across the WP article today, despite having heard of every other product listed on the page; yes, even "Zud"! Just as that shouldn't matter to the debate here, neither should your view of the product. By the by, it's...uh, lovely that you happened to find this page after almost five years!184.145.42.19 (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to insult everyone you disagree with? Nfitz (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"weasel words" is WP's terminology, which describes perfectly a word like "iconic" in the above context. I suggest you lay off the personal attacks right now. It's unbecoming of a serious editor.184.145.42.19 (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your sarcastic comment about their reappearance 5 years later. It's pretty easy to see from their edit history that they regularly contribute to AFD discussions, and that they were going through new AFDs just now. Not surprisingly, they recognized the product name, and edited. Is it possible that you are not that familiar with this product, because it is primarily an American product, and you don't live in the USA? I must admit it's not common here in Ontario - though not entirely unheard of. Nfitz (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor's previous opinions on an article are relevant, or else they wouldn't be posted here. US products are advertised on TV...which we in Ontario get piped in from Detroit, Buffalo or Rochester. I've heard of Zud, which is equally (un)popular here. Nevertheless, my position to delete is based on the same internet they get down there, or that you do. It's a trash article, whose only purpose is to let people know that a cleaner exists. Well, the SerVaas family owns newspapers or whatever, so they don't need free advertising! Now, unless you have more ad hominem insults, I think you've made whatever contribution to this debate that you can. Bye.184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's some Zud under my sink. The article has issues - no one disagrees with that. This debate isn't about whether the article has issues - issues can be fixed. This debate is about whether the article should exist. They are two almost entirely unrelated issues. You act like the product is unusual. However for "bar keepers friend" one gets over 300,000 hits. That's not a rare product. Nfitz (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A thing being common /= a thing being notable. I'm not acting like anything. How do you not know this after 11 years on here???184.145.42.19 (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why again the rudeness? Why the straw men? I'm simply trying to understand your strong objection to this article in particular, compared to similar equivalent products, such as Vim, Comet, or Ajax. Nfitz (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The primary editor arguing for deletion seems to be doing so on the basis of some combination of his personal unfamiliarity with the subject of the article and the fact that primary sources about a product that was predominantly established 50 years before the advent of the internet does not have significant enough internet coverage for his tastes --300,000 google hits notwithstanding.

I appreciate that the article could be stronger, but I disagree that it is merely and advertisement. The comparisons with other products and statements as to its value are there to establish notability for the subject, not to advertise it. The factual information is not, so far as I can tell, in dispute, so as to whether or not the validity of an industry mag as a reference is made "suspicious" by having as the editor the son of an industrial manufacturer is largely irrelevant in my book, mainly due to the plentitude of other references. Industrial participation does tend to run in families, and that does not inherently make their behavior unethical. As to whether or not iconic is a weasel-word, I can understand that assertion, but I personally find that term fairly apt. This is a product that has stood the test of time with, so far as I can tell, very little alteration, while commonly being recommended by word of mouth. Word of mouth is how I found out about it, and its effectiveness is why I was surprised there wasn't an article about it, so I created one. The tendency to nominate articles for deletion mostly because the subjects don't *seem* important to you is one of the significant activities that discourages diversity among our editors, and in my mind, negatively impacts the effectiveness of Wikipedia as a general reference, both by decreasing the range of its content and by contributing to our poor reputation, as a very political place where female and minority perspectives tend to get deleted by young white men who have the leisure time to be relentlessly insulting to everyone who disagrees with them. I think this cleaning product is notable enough in and of itself to have an article, and that serves the interests of readers like me who do most of the household cleaning for our families. To delete it seems arbitrary and whimsical and not the rigorous enforcement of policy the nominator seems to think his actions embody. Netmouse (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is long-established, internationally known and unusual in its composition (I know of no other similar products sold at widespread retail). Why shouldn't we have it? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zud is similar in composition. The article nominated here for deletion even mentions it (both primarily contain oxalic acid and an abrasive). In any event, that still doesn't satisfy WP notability criteria.184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Zud is not similar in composition, it is much simpler and cruder. It is also prone to scratching glass, as it uses silica and pumice as abrasives, unlike Barkeeper's Friend which uses a softer feldspar. Barkeeper's Friend also contains a surfactant, which Zud doesn't, so doesn't need additional soaps or detergent in use. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it was mentioned above that there are 95 websites selling this product. That sounds like a compelling case for notability. Lepricavark (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I actually said was that, of the first ten pages of Google results, 95% of them are selling it. IOW, you're compelled by a reason other than WP:N. This is to the detriment of Wikipedia.184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what you actually said. Besides, I personally believe that it is better to apply common sense than to insist on rigidly adhering to policy. Furthermore, it is both hilarious and preposterous that you have the nerve to talk about anything being a detriment to this project. All you are doing is wasting the time of people who are actually interested in building an encyclopedia. I'll ask you a variant on the question you uproariously asked BMK below: how can you possibly believe that you have anything further to add to this conversation? Lepricavark (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Andy Dingley in full. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I agree with x..." is not a reason to keep, and more "Keep" "votes" /= a win. If you're not making a new point, what have you added to the conversation???184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I agree with" simply means that I'm citing the same reasons as they did, so, yes, it is a valid reason to keep. You, on the other hand, have been warned on AN/I about WP:BLUDGEON, so you need to stop responding to every !vote posted here before some admin sees your behavior as being disruptive and blocks you for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when did the number of web sites selling a product or being "well known" and/or "unique" but having no significant coverage in independent RS pass GNG? Three hundred thousand trivial mentions dating back eighty years do not add up to significant coverage. If this were some new product with the same quality of sources (Lots of trivial mentions that say nothing beyond, shocking I know, that a cleaner cleans stuff; a single article in a regional business magazine; the MDS data sheet for its primary component; and citations to the product's own web site.) we would be discussing, at most, whether it should have been tagged {{db-advert}} and definitly not heading towards a snow keep.
We have notability criteria and content standards for a reasons, including to ensure that the topic is both encyclopedic and can be covered in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Usage instructions and primary sources lead to an article which is neither. Show me how independent reliable sources can be used to write an encyclopedic article that talks about the product - say its history, why it's unique, what effect it has had on the history of cleaning products etc - and I will withdraw this nomination and !vote keep myself. Jbh ^Talk 18:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain non-notable things don't receive 300,000 trivial mentions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I am positive that we do not have a notability criterion that says trivial mentions somehow 'stack' and that we do address this issue in WP:GHITS specificly as an arguement to avoid. Jbh ^Talk 18:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, that essay means absolutely nothing to me as it tends to dismiss arguments that I believe are valid. Lepricavark (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm fairly certain..." /= "reliable source". There are 633k results for "toenail art"...you gonna go write the article now? 184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the topic doesn't interest me. Also, I'm not obligated to write anything. This is a volunteer website. I'm giving my time and receiving no compensation for it. So drop your condescending attitude. Lepricavark (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I added another source within the box I provided above. See "addendum". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that article says about the product it taken verbatim from the company's About Us page.
There may be more information available about the company that would justify an article, this page could then be redirected to a section in the company's page. I could definitly support that. Jbh ^Talk 18:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The only thing that article says about the product it (sic) taken verbatim..." is not true. The Packaging World article (link) includes a great deal of content about the product's manufacturing and production. Only the second paragraph of the 14-paragraph Packaging World article contains content that is also on the company's website, and within this second paragraph, it's not all verbatim; only the first three sentences within it have verbatim content. The rest of the article is not on the company's website. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable, you only have to plug the name into a Google News search to see that. Admittedly, products are somewhat tricky in terms of notability, but as a UK version of this article I'd suggest Brasso which is an equally notable but equally poor (and should be improved) article. Neither, however, are non-notable. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not a recognized criterion for WP notability. If it's so notable, it should be easy to find refs that aren't trash. I went through the first ten pages of Google Search results, and there wasn't one solid ref.184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it is obviously notable, and meets GNG. I rarely am on the "keep" side of AfD discussions but this one is a slam-dunk. Coretheapple (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Coretheapple is a major contributor to this article, and is the first user to revert my deletion of unsupported claims with bad references. Thanks for your opinion!184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know if you can call me a "major" contributor. I did revert one of your edits, and earlier I excised some promotional content. My main interest is in creating an article on "Zud," a similar product, but alas there is a paucity of sourcing. Why cleaning powders don't interest The New York Times is beyond me. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the AfD but FFS if something is obviously notable should it not be trivially easy to come up with a couple of independent reliable sources that provide significant in depth coverage that demonstrate that notability? That is, after all, why we differentiate between WP:N and the dictionary definition of notable. Jbh ^Talk 19:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I think the fact that there is one "delete" !vote (the 184 IP) disqualifies the AfD from being withdrawn by the nominator. If all the !votes were "keep" you could withdraw it, because there would then be no "delete" votes, and the net result would be to keep the article. As I said, I might have that wrong, but that's my understanding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have never heard of the product before so I have no idea how it is obviously notable. There are lots of trivial references in books, but I am finding it hard to come up with any reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's mentioned in a book called My Boyfriend Barfed in My Handbag, and for that reason alone I hope this ends up a keep. E Eng 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:EEng, I came this close to writing that up--but there's already a redirect to the author, Jolie Kerr, and there isn't that much to say about it. I know, we have editors who can stretch out every single cookbook to GA length, but that's not me. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did have the idea it'd make a great DYK. E Eng 02:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This cleanser has been a household product in the United States for at least a century. It's like Ajax (cleaning product), but can also remove things like hard water spots and rust. Here's some mentions: 1, 2, 3, 4. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Maile66, are you saying Ajax can't get rid of those spots? What about Comet? I thought it was all the same stuff. While I have your ear, what do you prefer--Brillo Pads or S.O.S Soap Pads? And do such pads come without soap powder in the US? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The pads are just steel wool, which you can buy in various degrees of coarseness at pretty much any hardware store, and maybe even some of the huge mega-supermarkets out there in the US (but not here in Manhattan, where the supermarkets are mostly less "super" and more "market". ) Whenever I go out-of-town to do a show and I'm confronted by the mega-markets, I have trouble finding stuff in all that space, and then making choices when I do find where what I'm looking for is located. (Oh, my family was a Brillo famiiy, but my wife's was an SOS family, and that's what we use.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is destined for the Off-Topic Hall of Fame. E Eng 04:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a barnstar for that? Or perhaps a statuette fashioned from steel wool? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFULL, EEng. I guess I've never seen, or looked for, steel wool in the hardware store. So, BMK, you travel the country to buy Brillo pads? That's exciting. I'm still interested in Maile66's response; they're an administrator and so they should be good at cleaning things. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, generally when I work outside of NYC, I go shopping to buy food, because if I ate out every night, I wouldn't have any salary left. I can't recall ever buying Brillo (or SOS, or steel wool, for that matter) when I'm out of town. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find no road trip is complete without a stop at one of the better retail establishments for some steel wool. I find the No. 000 especially... soothing. Great for exfoliating. E Eng 02:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeeper's Friend (and Zud) are unusual in that they contain oxalic acid. This is uncommonly good at removing inorganic mineral staining from metals (i.e. water stain, rust), and commonly good at removing staining from non-metals. It's the convenient version of the old trick for cleaning a metal pan (canonically aluminium) by boiling up rhubarb or rhubarb leaves in it. It's also one of those products where you think, "If they hadn't been making that for a hundred years, they'd never get to make it new today". Certainly I wear gloves around it. There are health-nut life-hack web sites out there saying, "Don't get ripped off by Big Cleaner, just use bulk oxalic acid instead." This is stupid advice, it removes the abrasive from these cleaners, 100% oxalic acid is also not a household chemical to have just hanging around. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! thanks. I think I have that kind of acid somewhere, as a tile cleaner. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Learned much from reading this page. GNG. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:58, 2 March 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) 19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyakumari congress committee

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

Not notable and no verifiable sources. An offshoot if Indian National Congress. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 18:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local party committee, no inherited notability and nothing to show passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 8 March 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) 04:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Blair

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

The sources do not provide the indepth coverage asked by GNG. Instead they provide passing, one line mentions that are not enough to meet that requirement. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially a prosified version of a résumé, not an encyclopedia article, and the subject is not being shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 6 March 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) 04:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Rawson

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

As the creator of this article I hate to do this, but I have come to better understand what is needed to pass the general notability guidelines. The sources are all either not fully indepdent or only provide passing mentions. Rawson is an educator, public speaker, and media personality, but not at a level that makes him notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per article creator above. Does not meet WP:GNG. Poor quality references, with little better available on internet search or scholar database. Delete. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Rigby

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

The sources tend to be more PR releases than news articles, and nothing shows that Rigby is actually a notable businessman. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG with articles like this and this. Please do your WP:BEFORE work before nominating. Rikster2 (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Rikster2. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to imagine the president of an NBA team, with 30 years of front-office experience wouldn't meet WP:GNG, and Rigby does with significant coverage like this. [58]. The breadth of coverage is tremendous. The nominator should be a little bit red-faced about nominating this one. Spurious AfD nominations are disruptive to the community.Jacona (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 7 March 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) 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Factory

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

Could not find evidence of secondary coverage, fails ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:NSOFTWARE. MereTechnicality ⚙ 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although a search turns up a few sources that mention the subject, coverage is rarely, if ever, significant, and thus fails WP:GNG. --Joshualouie711^talk 13:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I found one book which appears to cover Reality Factory - Entry Level 3D Game Creation using Reality Factory: Volume One Practical Tips & Techniques July 27, 2010, HobbyPRESS (Hong Kong). Preview is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Entry-Level-Creation-Reality-Factory/dp/1453692894 . Dialectric (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG with no reliable secondary independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. It appears there are very brief mentions and some self-published material. The book linked above is self-published. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've edited my nomination to link to the correct notability guideline. MereTechnicality ⚙ 00:29, 3 March 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) 04:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodica Silvia Stan

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

Seems like a pretty run-of-the-mill academic to me. No independent sources, no indication of WP:PROF being met. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added ww project to talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (provisional. It's hard to find a pass of WP:Prof when only 7 people have ever cited her work on GS [59]. Can WP:GNG help? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't think GS citations are helpful for this field, but there are also no significant book reviews and none of the books are widely held according to Worldcat. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:22, 5 March 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) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Blush

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

Notability not established. Fails WP:AUTHOR, does not cite any reliable sources. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 23:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Nawgu

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

This is an interesting topic-area that I would want to keep. But I'm afraid I am unconvinced that the references that exist demonstrates that it meets our notability guidelines for persons. StellaDimokoKorkus.com and many other sources that speaks about him aren't reliable sources. Most of the other references in the article are centered on Bakassi Boys, not Eddy. The Academia paper looks promising but I'm not sure its sufficient. If significant coverage can't be found, I suggest the article is merged with Bakassi Boys, since this was one of their many popular cases or its Deleted. Darreg (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep I humbly wish that the Administrator or any contributor to this discussion takes an overall look at the article before taking action. This article is developed with proper referencing and proper citations abiding by all Wikipedia polices and rules, if after your observation of the article you believe the article is not worthy to stay, then please by all means vote whatever you feel is best, I am merely a contributor to knowledge and nothing more.

Now, if the issue or problem some persons may have concerning this article is subjects significance or notability then the 11th refrence provided duly covers that area accurately.

further more Everyone is invited to click on this Research for more indepth understanding of subject

Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted by Darreg. Some of the sources in the article are not reliable. The reliable sources in the article centers on the Bakassi Boys. A search of the subject on Google doesn't show the subject being independently discussed outside of the Bskassi Boys. I think a section about the subject can be included in the Bakassi Boys article, with some of the content from this article being built in. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - do understand this sir, as I stated in the article , his name or rather spelling of his name varied. for example "Prophet Eddy Nawgu" "Prohet Eddy Na Nawgu" "Prophet Eddie Nawgu" "Prophet Eddy N'ogu" when searched on google would give you various topics and results which differ from the other depending on the name entered by user, but all is about the same person : "Prophet Eddie Nawgu"

- - - - Different Dialects from the igbo tribe in Nigeria may have caused this complication. Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. On a second look, I noticed that the articles created by Celestina007 are not backed by inline sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Hello, that is quite incorrect sir, and the history button is there to prove your above statement wrong. My article on "Charles Awurum" was the only article of mine lacking inline citations of which as of now it has been improved.
      - Even when it did lack inline citations, it was properly referenced.
      - As regards my current article on Eddie Nawgu It clearly passes Wp:gng because; it has significant coverage, sources are reliable, and sources are secondary and independent of subject. If diligently you have gone through all references surely you would agree it clearly passes. Celestina007 (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the individual in question is the subject of various Nigerian news articles and an academic research paper published in a respected peer-reviewed journal (Johannes, Harnischfeger,. "State Decline and the Return of Occult Powers: The Case of Prophet Eddy in Nigeria". Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft 1). The article needs work, but the individual in question is clearly notable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Can you please provide us with the "various Nigerian news articles" you speak of? The few reliable sources in the article do not discuss the subject independently and in detail. The sources are centered around the Bakassi Boys, with the subject receiving trivial mentions. One reliable reviewed journal is not enough to establish notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: an article not conforming to all the rules of wp:gng does not necessarily translate to its exclusion from Wikipedia. This article even conforms to all the criteria, it has reliable sources , it is independent of subject , it has been used as case study for a project by non-Nigerians what else do we really need to establish notability of subject? Article is properly written by me and has suffient references, I believe article should Stand alone. Please let us work together and Close up the information gap, information should be accessible to all Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Versace1608. Domdeparis (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is more than one scholarly paper discussing Nawgu as a notable person in his field, which means it meets WP:GNG. Ijon (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, can't deeplink to S3. Here's a Google Scholar query (note the variant spelling) where the second result is another relevant scholarly paper. Ijon (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Echoing Midnightblueowl, it seems clear that Eddie Nawgu has a specific and important history for/in Nigeria. Arguably, the notability of the Bakassi Boys is also based - to some extent - on the notability of Nawgu. Ijon points out some of the academic articles that reference Nawgu and his importance in an overall socio-cultural history of Nigeria.

The additional reasoning I'd offer to my Keep (which makes it a Strong Keep for me), is that I believe we cannot expect the same numbers of academic and other references for an article on Nigerian history than, for say, Western European or United States history. This is not a reflection on Wikipedia, but unfortunately a much deeper structural issue around the nature and reach of academic and other publishing; we must acknowledge that this continues to be primarily centered around Europe and North America. So even as I have sympathy for - and give thanks to - all Wikipedian patrollers who make sure that articles are to a reliable, verifiable standard, I think we must understand the broader dynamics at play.

It seems to me that while the article could do with some additional work, the main editor has, in all good faith, done their best to conform to Wikipedia rules, and to establish notability as best they can. It is now up to us to recognise that this _is an article that deserves to be on enWP, because of its significance in the Nigerian canon. As a reminder to us all, Nigeria has a population of over 190 million, making it the 7th most populated country in the world. We should be encouraging more articles about and from Nigeria, while supporting editors to conform to enWP standards. thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the reasons mentioned by Anasuyas. I also find it perplexing that this article's sources should be scrutinised so intensely given how most stub quality articles are not. I would also like to echo Celestina007 point that "not conforming to all the rules of wp:gng does not necessarily translate to its exclusion from Wikipedia." This covers a range of article types from small towns/local land marks to broader topics from countries which might not have the range or depth of easily accessible written or digital references other parts of the world might have. It feels as though this deletion request is made without any recognition of the articles context.--Discott (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I mean right off "State Decline and the Return of Occult Powers: The Case of Prophet Eddy in Nigeria" is a long article by a scholar that heavily engages the subject. That's moving into WP:GNG territory right there, and we have a lot of bio articles where I wish we had such a source. And there are bunch of other sources in the article. And Anasuyas's point is well taken, that "we cannot expect the same numbers of academic and other references for an article on Nigerian history than, for say, Western European or United States history" and we have to give a little leeway here, else our encyclopedia becomes overly focused on subjects we can easily get refs for -- people and things in America, Britain, etc. Granted article needs some work but I've seen worse cases. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Midnightblueowl and others above. These are great sources for a stub, especially given the context of available written Nigerian history. Clearly room to improve the article, but also clearly notable so let's just improve it. Siko (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which of the criteria in ANYBIO does he fulfill? Domdeparis (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - for all the reasons cited by Midnightblueowl and Anasuyas above. The lack of references that are seen as "citable" in the developing world means that so many people who are perceived as being notable to huge populations might not pass many Wikipedians' personal citations criteria. This doesn't mean that the person is any less notable, but that the structures to reassure Wikipedia that he is notable are not flexible enough to encompass this kind of issue. As the nominator Darreg said, this is an interesting topic-area. Please keep. Isla Haddow (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It spells out something of interest. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:40, 3 March 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) 04:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Zaga

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

Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they do not pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 3 March 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) 04:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of the Dark (2001 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No claim of notability, no sources other than youtube and forums Rogermx (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a local interest story in The New York Times about the film, and this review from HorrorTalk.com, a source I sometimes cite. The IMDb links to a Fangoria review that's gone dead, but I can't find it in the Wayback Machine. I don't know. It's really hard to tell with these Brain Damage Films releases. Most of them are so amateurish they don't get reviewed, but sometimes one will break through to the mainstream. It's really hard to tell if that's what happened here, given the link rot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 3 March 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) 04:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZK_(framework)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ZK (framework)

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

Advertisement, no notable news references Ziphit (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotional and how-to style text is a content issue, nota notability one. Article sources include two full-length books on just this software by reputable computer industry publishers. Other WP:RS have significant coverage. Easily clears WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beedi Naataka

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

If the updated infobox is to be believed (and there are no references), this is an unreleased film, and unreleased films seldom satisfy film notability, and there is nothing in this mess to indicate that this is one of the exceptions. This article at present, and in previous versions, is an unsalvageable mess. A Google search doesn't turn up anything that would allow the article to be salvaged, let alone to establish notability. If it were notable, it would need to be blown up and started over. Partly not in English. Cast listing consists only of mononyms. Text is a hodge-podge. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:TOOSOON doesn't pass WP:MOVIE KylieTastic (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 2 March 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) 04:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miechucińskie

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

Meaningless dab page. NO place can possibly be called by this word: it is a plural form of an adjective. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Staszek. I've added Template:Distinguish to both articles to help readers navigate between the two. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:52, 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Campbell

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

I can't find any independent, reliable secondary sources covering Campbell in any significant way. The guy is the president of the notable advocacy group American Council on Science and Health and has a self-published website (science20.com) on the side. He wrote a book, writes opinion pieces for newspapers, and appears on cable news from time to time. However I can't find anything significant written about him by others. I believe all of the cited sources were written by Campbell himself, or by his organization. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on published work and news appearances, but article needs work to more concretely demonstrate notability.RudyLucius (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we concrete demonstrate notability as you suggest if there are no reliable, independent secondary sources with substantial coverage of Campbell? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting a completely unsubstantiated personal attack on another editor. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are impermissible personal attacks. Neutrality^talk 20:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more agenda-based than anything. I looked at the argument Dr. Fleischman made and his other edits and it seems more like a grievance with an organization subject joined after creating science 2.0, which has been around since 2006. If an editor removes someone from existence on a page, and suddenly that is the reason to delete an entire entry, it looks like an incredible coincidence. Also, looking through the edits history on the wp science 2.0 page he was removed at around the time he joined a new group which Dr. Fleischman also seems to now want banned. I created this page and various others in science media and entertainment, that's why i got the email about it. Perfectommy (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't follow, but this sort of unsubstantiated COI accusation seems inappropriate for an AfD. I suggest this content be collapsed. If Perfectommy really wants to press the issue then, as my user page suggests I welcome them to discuss it with me on my user talk or take it to WP:COIN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also warn Dr. Fleischman about personal attacks as well, since he began his criticism of the article that way. At this point, his conduct is so conspiratorial the wp community has no way to know if this warning was not generated by him. Perfectommy (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does seem fairly notable, having written for the Wall Street Journal, Wired and USA Today and appeared on Fox News. His book was also pretty successful.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:141C:9E8B:6F41:2A29 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't mind seeing some commentary by more experienced editors before this AfD is closed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete – Okay DrFleischman, a !vote from a more experienced editor who was just about to relist this AfD. ~~I concur with the other two !votes and somewhere within a field of 6,140 Google News results should be evidence of WP:N and WP:GNG.~~ Narrowing it down we've got 1,190 results, 1,070, also books. See below for why I changed my opinion. J 947 19:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Modified on 00:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC) by J947 (talk · contribs).[reply]

J947, you haven't excluded the sources written by Campbell himself or by his coworkers at the American Council on Science and Health. Those are clearly not independent sources (a basic requirement of WP:N). Please re-read the AfD, which addresses this issue. We need sources about Campbell, not by him. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: There are 680 by Campbell (see here), which still leaves 400 not by him. J 947 21:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J947, please look more closely. You only counted the ones that had the words "by Hank Campbell" in them. The remaining sources are by him but do not say "by Hank Campbell," or they are by his co-workers at the ACSH, or they are published on his science20.com website, or they are otherwise unreliable, or they do not include significant coverage about him. If you can find a single source that meets our criteria then I would very much appreciate it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: This and this eliminate it down to 70, and this down to 60. On books it gets down to 55 (see here). This takes it down to 50. Here's one ([60]) and another ([61]), another ([62]), and another ([63]), that don't meet your criteria shown above but at least are secondary sources independent of the subject. I'll take another look later. J 947 23:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any so I've changed my !vote. J 947 00:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nom). I do not see how we cross the notability threshold unless/until someone identifies reliable, independent secondary sources about Campbell, rather than by him or his organizations (science20.com or the American Council on Science and Health). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, if anyone finds such sources then I will gladly change my !vote and/or withdraw the AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — at best he's a director of a right-wing lobbyist/think-tank organization; the organization might be notable; he otherwise is not. Appears to have hijacked the concept article of Science 2.0 by simply creating the domain name and sticking a blog on it; now this article refers to that site by bluelinking from references (as if the site == the article linked). --slakr^\ talk / 03:47, 9 March 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.

[1] "Sponsors of the 2006 FAME Awards". Web.archive.org. 2014-10-16. Archived from the original on October 16, 2014. Retrieved 2015-08-20.

[auto-2] Steve Javors (2007-06-16). "F.A.M.E. Awards Receives Milestone Vote". XBIZ. Retrieved 2007-06-24.

[archive2006-3] "About the 2006 FAME Awards". Archived from the original on December 25, 2010. Retrieved 2015-08-20.^{[dead link]}

[thefameawards.com-4] "About the 2008 F.A.M.E. Awards". thefameawards.com. Archived from the original on 16 October 2014. Retrieved 21 August 2015.

[5] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/us/a-peaceful-muslim-majority-in-the-us-tarred-by-acts-of-a-few.html

[6] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/since-911-muslim-society-in-the-us-has-been-transformed-trump-could-change-it-back/2017/02/09/3f75d060-eca9-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html

[7] ttp://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-silicon-valley-immigration-20170128-story.html

[8] ttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/muslim-americans-respond-to-a-caustic-campaign-by-raising-money-and-mobilizing/

[9] ttp://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/10/31/michigans-muslims-can-stop-trump/93099778/

[10] ttp://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/08/mich-residents-trumps-muslim-ban-just-america/76966322/

[11] ttps://www.abqjournal.com/947080/us-muslims-defense-the-constitution.html

[12] ttp://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Immigrant-families-ensnared-by-Trump-order-10892568.php

[13] ttp://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2017/01/university-charlottesville-community-celebrate-mlk

[14] ttp://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/ct-tech-trump-immigration-order-20170128-story.html

[15] ttps://www.buzzfeed.com/talalansari/two-new-anti-sharia-bills

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]