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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) by nominator

North Park Elementary School shooting[edit]

North Park Elementary School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

this is a domestic violence issue that spilled into the workplace. Since when did WP:NOTNEWS cease to be a thing? It happened yesterday. Obviously, we cannot know if it will have the enduring coverage required to keep a crime story, nor can we know if it will have a lasting impact, altho an educated guess can be made on that. It won't. The only way this should stay is if we are going to completely disavow WP:NOTNEWS. John from Idegon (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Article cites 17 sources, most of them independent of each other. WP:NotNews pertains to first-hand journalism. Wikipedia is not itself a news site, but when several actual news services consider something worth reporting, that makes it notable. Whether it is an event that happened yesterday (at one extreme) or the Big Bang (at the other extreme), notable events are still notable wherever they fell on the calendar. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. It is the first fatal school shooting of the year. It also followed the 2015 San Bernardino attack, which multiple WP:RS has noted. I would also like to note that WP:NOTNEWS refers to "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", while WP:CRIME states, "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act." We don't make personal WP:CRYSTAL guesses about "enduring notability"; we assess the reliable sources. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyrus the Penner. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - Still disagree with the trend to turn us into a newspaper, but obviously this isn't the forum for it. John from Idegon (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography in the Russian Federation[edit]

Pornography in the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:TNT this mess of WP:OR really needs to go, though I don't doubt a neutral article on the topic could be written. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OR BobLaRouche (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is definitely content for this subject. Article needs cleanup and renaming (History of pornography in Russia). Fatty wawa (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• trully shit article fully deserving of a dose of tnt, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TNT. Unsourced or poorly sourced, plenty of original research. The "article" consists of unrelated sections that have only Russia in common. It doesn't actually say anything about pornography in Russia, does it? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- largely unsourced original research; not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. The topic may be notable, but this article ain't it. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete can be marked down as one the lamest articles of Q2 2017. L3X1 (distant write) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Random facts garnishing original research do not an article make. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Müller (Officer)[edit]

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

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

Just a man with a job. Article only sourced with unsuitable press releases. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:GNG. I agree. Just a man with a job. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reads like a promo press piece. Non-notable for stand alone article; as said above, "a man with a job". His rank alone should not be the determining factor. Kierzek (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some ordinary employee like all others, not enough for a page. Drunken Donald (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:SOLDIER. His rank is equivalent to major general. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on an essay? The Banner talk 10:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because of its rank he is notable.. and only his rank is enough for being notable Divisional general German: Divisionär NATO-Code: OF-7. Also notablle because he is the vice commander of the Swiss Air Force ,Deputy Commander of the Swiss Air Force,and Notable because he will be the commander of the Swiss Air Force from 31.12.2017 on. This is just again a wikihounding deleting attack of the Banner against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that you realize that your constant attacks on me are not helping your article? Most people will see the attacks as an attempt to hide your lack of arguments to protect your own articles. The Banner talk 10:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • I hope that you realize that your constant attacks on me are not helping your article? Most people will see the attacks as an attempt to hide your lack of arguments to protect your own articles. The Banner talk 10:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)> Ii don't attack you, you are the one who is stalking and bully me!FFA P-16 (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My friend, you are not even able to place responses on the correct place. (I replaced my response, as you have written through it and garbled it up.) The Banner talk 14:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm no big expert in the English wikipedia, but your focus on FFA P-16's articles and that you constantly suggest his articles for deletion is in my opinion a WP:HOUND case! --MBurch (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article definitely needs work, but he's a two-star general, and will soon be the commander of the Swiss Air Force. No doubt there are RS in Swiss language newspapers regarding him, someone just needs to find them. Meets WP:SOLDIER for now at least. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with Kierzek. Article struck me as a self-promotional piece and lacks (presently) sufficient independent reliable sourcing. As to Peacemaker67 comment, when he makes commander of Swiss Air Force, I'm sure there will be new reliable independent sources (coverage), but until then subject doesn't meet simplest of WP standards.Cllgbksr (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cllgbksr. The articel uses standart informations about Bernhard Müller from the Federal swiss Goverment, but just using Googel, and the 3 wordsLuftwaffe Bernhard Müller shows enough informations in online news and Tv [1].. In less than eight month he will be the new commander of the Swiss Air Force.. but he is also since a few years already the vice commander of the swiss air force and since a few years Divisionär ( WP:SOLDIER). FFA P-16 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER --MBurch (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A brief Google search on ""Bernhard Müller" Schweiz Luftwaffe" revealed a number of sources establishing notability. Tagesanzeiger, ibid. St. Galler Tagblatt, Berner Zeitung, etc. The same goes for ""Bernhard Müller" Forces aeriennes": Le Temps, La Region, Tribune de Geneve. Switzerland is multilingual, searches are a bit more complex that you'd expect for, say, US or British military dignitaries. Kleuske (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those four German language ones are in fact just passing mentions. They are not about him. The Banner talk 21:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The sources Kleuske found seem compelling to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not because of SOLDIER, which is just an essay, but because of the prominent role & accompanying coverage. This article from the national Austrian daily provides some bio details:

• Bernhard Müller, currently Chief Operating Officer of the Austrian Air Force, will become a new Air Force chief. Müller was a chief instructor during the introduction of the Super Pumas. Among other things, he directed humanitarian helicopter missions of the Swiss army in Albania and Sumatra as well as fire fighting missions in Greece. Müller was already being talked about in 2013 as a possible air force chief, but the election fell to Schellenberg. link.

When he becomes chief of the air force, someone is likely to create an article on him, so why delete now. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly passes WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very clear pass of WP:SOLDIER, which although only an essay has long been the notability standard for military bios. Some editors are clearly either not aware of our notability standards or think they know better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets one of the criteria for WP:SOLDIER, will meet another at the end of the year.Tobyc75 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest Link[edit]

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

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

The merger discussion has been on hold for a year now. I've made some section mergers such as History and International Versions but the others in that articles are just duplicates of the same info as this main article. Neverrainy (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable mainstream TV show. Drunken Donald (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep WP:TROUTing the nom; this is the absolute last place this should be taken for discussion. There's no chance we delete this at all, so pursue another venue or be WP:BOLD and just merge it already. @Catgirl: so they're aware as the original initiator of the merge discussion Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. If a merge isn't completed, it would probably be better to use the article for information about the franchise as a whole and move the international versions section, etc to the page from the UK version article, similar to The Price Is Right or Big Brother (franchise). -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Popular television show. Dean Esmay (talk)
• Keep Deletion isn't cleanup. Article is about a popular television game show that is certainly notable. --Majora (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am almost positive that The Weakest Link is regarded as a cult game show. I certainly do, and even if it isn't, it was pretty popular in the 2000s nonetheless. --Porridge (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2017 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (✉) 04:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force ALBA[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 22:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Military Missions are notable, especialy the first Mission oft the (from neutral Switzerland) Swiss Air Force on foreigen soil. This mission made it possible to build up later the Swisscoy and the Swiss participitation at KFOR Misions.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not particularly noteworthy for a stand-alone article, possibly add a para in Swiss Air Force which has no mention of such operations. MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep - @The Banner: Can you elaborate a bit. Searching google and google books, the operation seems to have had coverage in Swiss newspapers and military journals. The article seems to pass NPOV, NOR, and V. Can you expand upon what exactly might be wrong with it? Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some mention, but not enough to make clear that the task force and/or the mission was noteworthy. The Banner talk 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It was the first humanitarian longtime mission for the Swiss Air Force abroad --MBurch (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence? The Banner talk 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - cited, good body structure, well illustrated.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A modest event, but worth having a WP article on. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This seems notable to me as a national-level contingent in a major international operation (per WP:MILUNIT - essay not policy though), added to fact that it represented a number of firsts for the Swiss etc. Google books alone returns 36 results in journals and books which for me is sufficient to at least presume that there is significant coverage of the topic as required by policy, i.e. WP:GNG (although many of them I can't read as they aren't in English). The article does have a few English funnies so could do with being copy-edited though. Anotherclown (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Era[edit]

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

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

This is an OR work; it uses two sources that are not in agreement about what the eras are, and then tacks on another era. (The promotion of that supposed era, "Next-Gen Marketing", appears to be the true goal here; creator is an apparent single-purpose account whose other efforts were adding references to Next-Gen Marketing into Multichannel marketing, creating a page for "Next-Gen Marketing" (now deleted), and creating a multichannel advertising page, the contents of which I cannot check, as it has been deleted for copyright violation.) Nat Gertler (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:OR. Article would need to be heavily expanded with additional reliable sources in order to be kept. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. This is not really a thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never Say Die Records[edit]

Never Say Die Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources are mostly own web-site + a couple with some passing mentions. Nothing of any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable record label. Drunken Donald (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as notability is lacking. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to United Express Flight 3411. OK, I don't think this needs to run any longer. There's a certain point where the fine definitions of SNOW and the far more important issues of BLP converge, with the latter overriding it. As it appears that the article on the flight will be probably be Kept (or at least close as No Consensus) then deleting and Redirecting there is an obvious close - let the debate continue at that AfD. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Dao[edit]

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

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

I redirected this to United Airlines Flight 3411 but the author wants to fight about here. So here we are wasting out time with an obvious delete. Dao has absolutely no notability outside of the UA incident and that article is undergoing AfD so if it isn't deemed notable enough for inclusion, Dao himself certainly isn't. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A very clear waste of time and space. DBaK (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." BlueSalix (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment you are leaving out a very relevant part of that guideline - "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified" Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think it's too early to tell if we should delete the flight article, but I'm sure this guy doesn't deserve his own article. I think "major role" would imply he had some role in planning out and executing the "event", but no, he was just a dude in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I really wouldn't call this event "highly significant", at least not right now. The biographical details in this article are pretty minor, and him being dragged off is actually the entire event, so you'd, in essence, be keeping two articles of the same thing if this was kept. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nohomersryan - do you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, that he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 make this a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the World Series of Poker thing very solid, no. He is not listed anywhere on the 2009 World Series of Poker results page, and that's full of people that have no articles. There are tens of thousands of players in each one, and it's not a very convincing claim of notability, especially since it's sourced to an article about him being pulled off the airplane. The other drug trafficking thing is not that impressive, considering all the sources are local news, and could easily be mentioned in the other article (especially since it's more notable as a "guy pulled off plane has checkered past!!" thing than anything). So yes, I'm sticking with my belief that this doesn't deserve its own article. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nohomersryan First, Wikipedia is not RS, second, the sources are not all local which should be apparent on a quick scan of the article had you undertaken one. But it sounds like we've reached the terminus of your interest in productive contribution to this discussion. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources of the arrest are directly local from when the event took place, the ones that aren't are in the context of him being pulled off the plane as far as I can tell. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the local RS aren't good because they're only local (a new and novel argument) and the national RS aren't good because they're only national. Makes perfect sense, Nohomersryan. BlueSalix (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, I don't find the fact that he was previously in the news solely for something local a solid establishment of notability. The current sources that cover them aren't in context of David Dao the doctor, they're in context of David Dao the man who got shoved off a plane... aka his one event. The source of the second sentence in the "Drug convictions" paragraph is titled "Revealed: All About the Doctor Dragged Off Overbooked United Flight — and His Troubled Past"; it's not what I'd call sustained coverage, and I believe this isn't a case of a previously notable man thrust into the spotlight. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO1E. At this time, the United Airlines Flight 3411 article suffices to tell the reader about Dao. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only notable for one event, which is itself no way notable enough for multiple articles. AIRcorn (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn - your position is that him being a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, his conviction of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and the UAL incident in 2017 are all a single event? BlueSalix (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• MERGE - MERGE to United Airlines Flight 3411 (or History of United Airlines) unless individual notability can be established. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If there exists a valid target for Dao, then that is where, at a minimum, this title should default to redirecting with history in tact per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I watched the initial post and redirect, and felt that this was a good example of WP:NOTNEWS. Person isn't notable. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The event is notable, not this person. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with redirect of name; not notable for stand alone article as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kierzek - do you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, that he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 make this a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. His crimes aren't particularly notable and neither is his poker playing which was only mediocre with him not playing in the Finals or even semi-final games. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I saw the news reports and thought, "I hope there isn't a Wikipedia article about this guy" so I searched for it. Only notable for one event. There is no overriding public interest (as in , in the interests of the public to be aware of, rather than something the public is interested in for curiosity value) to justify the loss of privacy for this individual. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United Airlines Flight 3411, given the notability of the incident, but not the person himself. (Iuio (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment Dao received local coverage back in 2005 from the Louisville Courier Journal, after being convicted for drug-related offensives related to his medical practice. It's ultimately how his identity was confirmed. I'm not sure if it's enough to give him his own page, but the guy in one way or another contributed to a billion dollar loss for United - his connection to the whole story seems notable to me. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. And I voted to keep the article on the flight itself. This man deserves privacy. --Aabicus (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

• Gamed AfD Unfortunately this AfD was heavily gamed - the specific content that would made this not a BLP1E case was deleted immediately after it was opened [2]. Now that 20 delete !votes have snowballed based on editors reading the "massaged" version of the article, it seems like a Speedy is pre-ordained. And that's how we make sure AfDs go the way we want. BlueSalix (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Even more reason to delete this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Please stop removing cited material from the article - as you did here [3] - about his World Series of Poker involvement and his criminal convictions that is cited to RS. Deprecatory information is not a BLP issue when cited to multiple RS. Stop gaming the AfD. BlueSalix (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As created, the page has the appearance of an attack page: link. Dao was not notable yesterday, and no one would have thought about creating an article on him except for the UA incident. Thus BIOE1 applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is clearly not WP:BIO1E. Dao's drug charges and conviction did receive significant coverage at the time, so he has clearly not only notable for the United Airlines incident.[4][5][6] [7] Furthermore, I am in complete agreement with User:BlueSalix, that the removal of information related to his conviction has tainted or gamed this AfD.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom -Drdisque (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drdisque - to clarify, you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who won $117,000 in 2009, he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 qualify as a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first two things come nowhere close to WP:GNG. The fact that he didn't have an article until yesterday speaks to that. -Drdisque (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep contra nom. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the crimes aren't particularly notable. Sad to say, but that sort of stuff happens all the time (relatively speaking). $250k in poker over 10 years is more than I've ever made, but for a professional that doesn't seem like he's too good. $25k a year. Unless there are sources from before the United incident that would satisfy GNG this is a clear case of BLP1E. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was $117,000 in 2009 which should be apparent on even a cursory look at the article, TonyBallioni. BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. I was addressing your claim above of $250k over 10 year, which averages out to $25k a year. The article clearly claims total lifetime earnings of $234k, and one year where he earned $117k. That sounds like a bad poker player who had a stroke of luck one year, and is hardly a claim to notability. Again, the crimes aren't notable, just something that caused a stir in the local news. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having a stroke of luck does not disqualify someone from meeting GNG; otherwise there would be many articles (e.g. Jack Whittaker (lottery winner)) that wouldn't exist here. BlueSalix (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject essay on biographical entries for poker players would disagree with you, and those are normally more generous than the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:BLP1E (same thing as BIO1E). epicgenius (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, epicgenius, you think winning $117K in poker in 2009, being convicted of 98 criminal charges in 2004 in a widely covered case, and the UAL incident, are all a single event? BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no? If the win was nationally covered in 2009 and he was notable enough, we would have had an article about him. If the case was widely noted, of course we'd have an article about him. But this is the first AFD, so obviously no one has raised the "notability" question before. (There's no deletion logs.) By the way, both events fail WP:NOTABILITY. The poker win, while not unsubstantial, does not stand out much either compared to other wins, and the "wide" coverage from the 2004 charges seems to have all been from the past few days. epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect either to United Airlines Flight 3411 or to United Airlines. He may not be notable enough for his own Article (at least not yet, he could very well be in the future), but he is notable enough for a Redirect. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect — to United Airlines Flight 3411, an article which I believe should be kept. This man is a minor figure who did not play a part in a very significant event; I think it's notable, but come on. The minor incidents covered here are unconvincing, as they appear to mostly have been significant in one Kentucky newspaper only. There is nothing here that can't be covered in the other article, and it's not particularly lengthy or bursting with coverage that would be undue weight in the aforementioned Flight 3411 article. Also, BlueSalix needs to read WP:STICK and WP:BLUDGEON. Not every opposing argument needs to be pinged and responded to with copy-and-pasted arguments, it's not likely to help your case. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Trescott as I, and other editors, have noted, there was serious gaming going on with this AfD. My notes are to let editors who !voted on the basis of the gamed version of the article know the mass deletions have been reverted. Editors deserve to make an informed !vote, not a !vote based on a selective presentation of information that one side in an argument has decided to display through selective obfuscation. I hope you agree. BlueSalix (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No gaming, just valid concerns about BLP violations. My "delete" vote was based on the fuller version of the biography, the one that made me think it should have been speedily deleted as an attack article. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "gamed" version? AusLondonder (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article creator means this: Unfortunately this AfD was heavily gamed - the specific content that would made this not a BLP1E case was deleted immediately after it was opened [8]. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the article creator is actually urging us to judge the more deletable version of the article! AusLondonder (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Someone can't keep cropping up in the news every few years over the course of a decade without meeting GNG. BobLaRouche (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or failing that Delete. He's essentially only notable because of the United incident. The criminal history seems to have been only of limited local interest at the time. (No, BlueSalix, you don't need to remind me of things you've already written here a dozen times.) Pinkbeast (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable person, not a public figure, a private individual. Some relevant details about Dr Dao can be placed in the main article on the incident. Ordinary Person (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If he was notable for his medical career or for his poker career how come we had no article about him until the evening of 11 April 2017? Indeed when one was created it read like a negative attack page. AusLondonder (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United Airlines Flight 3411 per WP:BLP1E. I don't think that having mediocre poker success (I dispute that he placed second in the World Series of Poker in 2009, according to our World Series of Poker article the runner up was Darvin Moon, who won a little over $5 million) and being convicted of felony charges rise anywhere near the standard of notability, as evidenced by the fact that no sources have been presented from the time of those events--they have only been publicized as part of the current media frenzy. So we are left with the single event on the United plane, which is a textbook example of BLP1E. He is receiving media coverage only in the context of this event, he is otherwise a low profile individual (one criminal incident is not notable, and the WSOP article has numbers in the thousands of participants) and even assuming that Flight 3411 is decided to be a significant event I would argue his role is not substantial in it--the long term notability of that article is dependent on its overall effects and coverage of which he is no longer a part. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment He didn't come in second place in the WSOP. He came in second place at a circuit championship in Mississippi per The Washington Post (which I corrected in the article with this reference). That definitely lowers the notability on that particular claim. Justeditingtoday (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment There are sources from the time of those events, FWIW - local news only. (I don't think they remotely establish notability). The article just happens to use more recent sources. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nuke it from orbit. This is precisely the type of private person about whom we should not have a page, barring further incident. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to the article on the flight if that survives AFD, or the main United article if it does not. Agree with others above that this individual does not meet the threshold that would merit a standalone article.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect the the UAL 3411 article that I believe should be kept. Notability has not been established for this person yet, and his involvement in the event can easily be covered in the other article. Other aspects of his life do not indicate notability as a separate article. --haha169 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP1E. If sources are still covering him after six months then possibly recreate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

• Redirect Searching his name should result in a redirect to the flight's wiki page. He is not a notable figure. Just because he was involved in a heavily reported incident doesn't mean he should have his own Wikipedia Page. Thatwweguy 619 (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E. This man is not known for three events, just one. Neither the criminal convictions nor the poker winnings garnered any substantial media attention prior to the airline incident. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into United Airlines Flight 3411.Fatty wawa (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hoped that I wouldn't find an article on this poor guy, but Wikipedia is nothing if not predictable. Classic BLP1E. AniMate 04:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Saw this coming from a mile away, Wikipedia is so predictable. Fails GNG.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 04:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - engage the CHECMATE to target this mess. BLP1E. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Also, media coverage of both the event and the individual's role have grown large and clearly will stay that way for years to come.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This event is not "highly significant". The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was highly significant. AusLondonder (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 per User:Iuio. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E. This guy is not notable in the slightest apart from the airline incident. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious redirect per above and WP:BIO1E. ansh666 05:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Mr. Dao has become famous for one reason: he was brutalized for refusing to get off a plane. Had this awful incident not occurred, Mr. Dao would not have a WP biography, and it strikes me as the classic example of a news story which receives saturation coverage for a few days and is forgotten shortly thereafter. As for prior news coverage of his legal troubles and poker winnings, it isn't sufficient to establish enduring notability for a biography. There's a difference between being a notable individual and merely landing in the news a few times. In particular, I don't see evidence that his past crimes are notable per WP:CRIM, which requires "sustained coverage ... which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Astro4686 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly passes WP:BIO1E which states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The fact that there's other coverage of this person for other reasons too means that topic also passes WP:BASIC. Per WP:BEFORE, there are obvious alternatives to deletion and so a deletion discussion is quite inappropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I knew someone would attempt to create an article but I am no less stunned and disappointedfor that. Have we learned nothing over the past 16-and-a-bit years? This article is precisely the reason that WP:BLP1E exists. It is not our role as encyclopedia editors to immortalise the pecadilloes of otherwise non-notable people. An administrator with more courage than me should delete this immediately. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E. No relevant information that cannot be summarized elsewhere. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The relevant information about the United Airlines incident must be in United Airlines Flight 3411. The remaining information is not relevant at all. --Discasto (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." User:Brogan lawrence (User talk:Brogan lawrence) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brogan lawrence (talk • contribs) — Brogan lawrence (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Comment I've BOLDLY edited the signature in the above, which was a cut and paste of Blue Salix's signature but actually written by another editor (who has 4 contribs, 2 trivial, this one, and unjustified removal of the AFD notice...) Pinkbeast (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 per WP:BIO1E. Sideways713 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect if deemed possible that the individual will at some point attain genuine general notability in the future) as only know for trivial events- winning at poker, being thrown off a plane- and the sources are insufficently deep in their coverage, mostly being about the events or their after effects rather than the man. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 12:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BIO1E. WWGB (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:BIO1E. Not notable at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or create an article on the incident and redirect this to that. One awful incident should not define a private citizen's life and subsequent Google searches forever. ValarianB (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1. Wiki is not a newspaper 2. Haviong bad things happen to you and getting the news is not notable 3. Sustained 4.GNG 5.I removed the poker earning, that is just blatant prooof of non notablity, if arcane stuff is dredged up from sources to make body for the article. 6. Let it snow let it snow let it snow L3X1 (distant write) 12:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable individual who received coverage simply because of a news event that in itself may not be notable. Trivial events dashed between absolutely no consistent coverage does not help make the article's case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

• Delete per aforementioned WP:BIO1E. You cannot measure the significance of this event on two days of reactions. No one's going to be writing about this in history books.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 caknuck _° needs to be running more often 13:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 - Seems like pretty clear WP:BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insect Dreams: The Half Life of Gregor Samsa[edit]

Insect Dreams: The Half Life of Gregor Samsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). SamsaK (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per these reviews - Pakn Treger , Blogcritics, Library Journal, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune. There is also this analysis and this analysis. It was also featured in a scholarly article about insects in dreams. There is much more available with just searching the name itself in Google. Did you follow WP:BEFORE? SL93 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SL93. Passes WP:NBOOK with flying colors. The nominator has only been around for two weeks, so we can forgive them if they misapplied the notability policy. Altamel (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable book as shown by notable sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Clearly passes GNG and NBOOK, as shown by reviews found by SL93. J947^(c) 06:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why was this article nominated for deletion. It meets GNG, WP:BOOKCRIT and NBOOK. And as SL93 indicated: "Per these reviews - Pakn Treger , Blogcritics, Library Journal, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune. There is also this analysis and this analysis. It was also featured in a scholarly article about insects in dreams. There is much more available with just searching the name itself in Google. Did you follow WP:BEFORE?" This AfD reminded me that I would like to read Kafka again and intend on doing so.Dean Esmay (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The nominator is a newcomer; they probably just made the mistake of conflating "this article does not cite any sources" with "this article is not notable." Altamel (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it meets It meets GNG, WP:BOOKCRIT and NBOOK, so I see no reason to delete--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting with a mix of a G7 (assuming that User:Vibhas Joshi is the new account of the soft blocked User:TheRisingStarsInc) and that there is an overwhelming consensus to delete here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vibhas Joshi[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:ENT. Most significant credit is assistant cinematographer on a minor film. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This probably could have been speedily deleted as WP:G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Mduvekot (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced and not much, if any, claim for notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - besides the above, "can't get there from here"; if this bloke was notable, which he ain't, this mass of hagiography would be of no use in constructing a page about him. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and is a Promotional article, that may be self-promotion from a single purpose account. There is certainly peacock wording (as noted above), no references (IMDb is not reliable and certainly can not be used for notability), with the only section full of original research. Otr500 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per all arguments noted above. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the achievements are not notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Dahiphale[edit]

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

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

CV of a non-notable urologist. He gets a mention in the Times of India for being part of a news conference about a conference, and another story about clinics he set up with his wife. Other than that, all the sources were listings, and Google doesn't seem to turn up much more. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he does some academic work but doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria for inclusion, and in a more general sense he doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO either. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete blatant promo. really bad sign when grownups are reaching back to undergrad awards to claim they are awesome. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's no evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG, and the article looks like a case of WP:RESUME. Brief mentions in newspapers, even The Times of India, is not enough to pass WP:GNG. WP:ACADEMIC is not applicable as the subject has not carried out any major academic research at any point in his career. — Stringy Acid (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The two brief mentions in the Times of India already cited as sources in the article are neither in-depth enough for WP:GNG nor enough to verify the claims in the article, and no other form of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam G. Landolfi[edit]

Adam G. Landolfi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. No doubt a nice guy and a successful guy, but not a notable guy. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing our notability guidelines. I've searched for sources but haven't found anything significant. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yep, fails simplest of WP:GNG and I love race cars... Cllgbksr (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Pszenyczny[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with lots of routine and primary sources. No evidence other than passing mentions in secondary sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY with 4 AHL games and no major awards, only a long career in the low- to mid-minor leagues. Yosemiter (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. No doubt fans of the teams for whom he's played remember him fondly, but that doesn't translate to Wikipedia notability. Ravenswing 21:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Routine sports coverage only and nothing to show any criteria of WP:NHOCKEY is met. Papaursa (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uta Dammann[edit]

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet our notability requirements. There is some coverage of her in sources, but this is mostly in the form of interviews and therefore not independent of the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I normally stay away from deletion disscussions, but after cleaning out references, I feel I should note that of the 21 references in text, 13 of them were other Wikipedia articles that can't be used as references. They were not sourcing anything to begin with, like using the article Iraq to source that she was a senior executive on projects there, the telecommunication article to source that she started a business, or her a reference to a church to source that she was a member. These articles have nothing to do with anything mentioned in her article. Of the remaining references, there are Facebook pages, Twitter, home pages of websites rather than one that supports the text, etc. A google search doesn't come up with much more than social networking sites, and those already mentioned here. I really don't see how the subject could pass notability with what's provided here. Cmr08 (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• New editors sometimes use references to provide links to other articles because they don't yet know about wikilinks, but here we had both. Thanks for doing the clean-up. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't pass a simple google-news hit count (2), or even google (353). What is out there - isn't enough.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Noting WP:HITS, there is insufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Gross[edit]

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

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

NN hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Article is unreferenced in any case, and the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. Ravenswing 19:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to point out that the article states he is a professional player, not amateur -- but only in 2nd tier National League B. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, fails NHOCKEY BobLaRouche (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definitely WP:TOOSOON and playing the NLB does not generate the kind of draft coverage even other hopefuls tend to get. Fails GNG and and NHOCKEY (senior team is the only international team with presumed notability, juniors do not). Yosemiter (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NHOCKEY and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Pettersson[edit]

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

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

NN amateur teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Article is unreferenced in any case, and the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. (No prejudice against redirecting to his brother's article.) Ravenswing 19:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Another WP:TOOSOON prior to being drafted without any awards. Found this brief write-up from THN but nothing substantial for GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft: Possesses high potential. Hurrygane (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What Wikipedia notability criteria do you claim the subject's alleged "potential" satisfies? Ravenswing 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Moving to Draft status would be appropriate. All these articles were likely created prematurely and have at least a 50% chance of being a first round pick in the NHL draft. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG. Apparently too soon. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. No need to move to draft as the article can be undeleted if he ends up being a first round draft pick. (I typically do this around the draft each year anyway). -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juuso Välimäki[edit]

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

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

NN amateur teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Article is all but unreferenced in any case, and the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. Ravenswing 19:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:TOOSOON for now until if and when h gets drafted in the first round of the NHL. Only decent coverage (from a possible WP:ROUTINE source since they really only cover the WHL) is this in-depth write up on him. Otherwise, he has not yet achieved any NHOCKEY criteria. Yosemiter (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft: Possesses high potential. Hurrygane (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What Wikipedia notability criteria do you claim the subject's alleged "potential" satisfies? Ravenswing 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: It's just common sense. Turning this page into a draft now would save a lot of time in the future. I think we all know he has the potential. 1) He's already a recognized figure in Finland (received an invitation to the Finnish Independence Day Reception in 2016).^[1] 2) He's a projected first round pick for the 2017 NHL Entry Draft.^[2] 3) He captained the gold medal-winning team at the 2016 IIHF World U18 Championships.^[3] Hurrygane (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving to Draft status would be appropriate. All these articles were likely created prematurely and have at least a 50% chance of being a first round pick in the NHL draft. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing is lost by deleting. We admins in the project, typically go back and undelete these types of player pages that are deleted if they end up becoming notable so effort is never lost. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very much too soon. Can find no evidence they meet GNG and arguments that they might be notable in the future are WP:CRYSTALBALL. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ruzicka[edit]

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

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

NN amateur teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY going away, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Article is unreferenced in any case, and the creation of an editor with numerous such articles up at AfD. Ravenswing 19:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: Primarily because of WP:TOOSOON. Best references for GNG I found was this article about his draft prospects and this interview from Hockey's Future. My guess he has close to 50% chance to making the first round in the draft, at which point he will meet NHOCKEY and the article can be un-deleted. His current accomplishments certainly do not meet NHOCKEY (only the senior national team has presumed notability, he has only play in the juniors). Yosemiter (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: Possesses high potential. Hurrygane (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What Wikipedia notability criteria do you claim the subject's alleged "potential" satisfies? Ravenswing 00:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Moving to Draft status would be appropriate. All these articles were likely created prematurely and have at least a 50% chance of being a first round pick in the NHL draft. Yosemiter (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is an amateur player with no signs of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Belfi[edit]

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

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

This article has been in terrible condition since, well, forever; I see that I added something a few years ago with a source, but I really don't see how this musician passes GNG (not enough sources that I can see) or the musician guideliness. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to lack the relevant claims to notability, even the one reference refers to him as "one of the more productive elements in Italy's minimal rock underground" which for me is indicative of him not having wider importance. KaisaL (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Member of Il Sogno del Marinaio album review album review live review bio and David Grubbs / Andrea Belfi / Stefano Pilia album review (see the Wire quote) B/B/S/ article review with solo coverage album review album review (see the Wire reviewed Ned n°2 and Between Neck & Stomach). More to be found in German and Italian. discog [9] may be good for wp:music#5? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:HOUND. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Participating in AfD discussions does not obligate Wikipedia volunteer editors to work on articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two above comments are responses to this comment which was later removed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In pretty terrible condition, short on reliable sources. SaintAviator lets talk 22:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mächler[edit]

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

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

Seems to be an internal functionary in a minor political party. There aren't any convincing claims of notability and the sources are almost entirely the Pirate Party and Machler's website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - run of the mill minor party official of small (albeit International) political party. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing claimed in the article constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the referencing is entirely to primary sources and blogs with no evidence of the reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors Opposing Circumcision[edit]

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

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

Lacking evidence of WP:GNG notability. The citations are largely to themselves or to a particular lawsuit they were involved in, but not about the org. Bri (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above. Lacks wider notability. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This organization is indeed notable, but the article fails to do it justice. It needs to be updated. I'll work on it in the next few days.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unable to locate significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:ORG and WP:PROMO Content attempts to hang importance on their putative role in Oregon court case, calling it a "landmark", but we don't seem to have an article on that and even if the case was landmark and notable, N is not inherited. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFRINGE. The likely reason there are no further secondary sources detailing this group is that the medical evidence on the efficacy of circumcision (e.g., reducing HIV transmission) has changed the medical ethical equation, and fewer doctors are willing to be associated with a WP:FRINGE movement. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preston treend[edit]

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

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and non-WP:ROUTINE coverage, fails WP:NSPORTS. PROD removed by page creator. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to be a WP:COI judging by the creator's username. Could be a candidate for WP:A7. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Preston Treend does not deserve to be deleted from wikipedia. Many sources accreditate his legitimacy in the sports and coaching world. He deserves to have his own wikipedia page for his success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansofpreston (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that the subject of this biography meets notability criteria per WP:BIO. This just some of this teacher's students having a bit of fun. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Edgeweyes, this is simply not true. Preston was a great wrestler and deserves a wiki page. Fansofpreston (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)FansOfPreston[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Nikki♥311 22:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He may be a nice guy and a fine coach, but nothing shows he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Host Analytics Inc[edit]

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

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

Undisclosed paid article, all sources are churnalism - press releases masquerading as editorial content, not independent of the company. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNG not met. Every time I see mention of a company's funding, a little "Conflict of Interest" alarm klaxon goes off. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inadequate references, and promotional (e.g. "it added big names to its client bas"). As there seems to be clear proof of editing in violation of the terms of use at WP:ANI, it could be deleted on that ground alone, the same as we delete copyvio. The WMF leaves enforcement of the TOU to the community,and this is a suitable place to do it. ` DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)`[reply]
• Delete references mostly glorified press releases, no indication of actual notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:PROMOTIONAL DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rustici[edit]

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

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

Subject is a minor academic, does not pass WP:Academics. Being an advisor to Ben Carson does not mitigate this, as the subject also doesn't pass WP:Politician or WP:GNG. Ghits [10] are minimal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has 2 major media sources mentioning the subject. How does that not meet GNG? Admittedly the article is short, but how does it harm the encyclopedia? I think that the real issue is that the primary author is accused of being a paid editor. The article in and of itself appears to be fine. Endercase (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue of whether a paid editor created the article had nothing to do with my nomination whatsoever -- I've substantially improved other articles by the same editor. It's simply the case that the subject is not notable, any way you look at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor academic. Also, how is being a "senior economics advisor" to one of 18 failed presidential candidate two years ago supposed to be a mark of notability? --Calton | Talk 03:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence subject satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meets neither NAUTHOR or WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG - doesn't meet GNG, NAUTHOR or PROF. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not found. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; we almost always delete articles about assistant and associate professors. This person has had little impact on his field so far. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NACADEMIC and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Passes neither WP:POLITICIAN for his candidate-advisor work nor WP:PROF for his scholarly contributions to economics. I note, for instance, that he is not listed by RePEc as being among the top economists in his state or country, and Google scholar finds only five publications, none with more than single-digit citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boar Man[edit]

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

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

This may be a hoax the principal source "Legend of the boar man" that has now been removed by the article creator is impossible to find and I could find no trace of a boar man in Wichita or any where else on the web but in any case this does not pass WP:GNG a search of cryptozoologynews (one of the sources cited) for boar man or wichita turns up nothing. Domdeparis (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost certainly a hoax, and definitely not notable. As the nominator stated, there is pretty much no information anywhere about this supposed cryptid, even on the actual sources being used in the article such as cryptozoologynews. And even if the subject wasn't just completely WP:MADEUP, the article is mostly OR and Synthesis, as it takes sources not about the subject, and tries to make claims connecting it (i.e., a report from the US Fish and Wildlife Services is being used to claim that animal deaths might because of Boar Man, or using sources on actual mythological subjects to claim that its related to this subject). As none of the sources being claimed in this article even mention the creature, thus making them complete false flags, I'd argue that this article could even just be Speedied as a blatant hoax. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hesitated about going down that road but as the creator seems to have had a lot of fun sourcing or rather pseudo-sourcing the subject I thought he might like the chance to defend it here and go the whole hog with the hoax. Domdeparis (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I find this article to be a hoax. The sources are general titles of websites, when you visit Cryptozoology News the main title (in the top of the browser navbar) is what is given as an article title. There is no mention of Boar Man. Ashley. "The Haunted Parallel Forest In Oklahoma Is Not For The Faint Of Heart." OnlyInYourState. N.p., 2016 makes no mention of this creature, and most of the other sources are in relation to other things. There is no sourcing or even mentions of this legendary creature online. This deceitful sourcing and lack of mentions online leads me to believe that this is indeed, a hoax. I would not speedy the article, because that is for obvious cases. The sourcing makes this non obvious. Nevertheless, a hoax must be deleted. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 20:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure vandalism. I note that this is the creator's only work on Wikipedia. Notability cannot be verified. MartinJones (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think there's any point having articles for fake animals that present them as though there is even a possibility they are real. Clawsyclaw (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please initiate Rename/Move proposals at the tallk page. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 04:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One driver numbers[edit]

List of Formula One driver numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This has been nominated before resulting in no consensus. As that means no clear consensus to keep either, I'm starting a fresh discussion. The issues which existed back then still exist today. This is very trivial has little appeal beyond the Formula 1 fans. The numbers that are used during the current season are always listed in the article for the current season and in the drivers' and constructors' articles. All this lists adds to that is the couple of former drivers that still hold the rights to a number and the one number that has been permanently retired. That does not seem to be enough for a standalone article for this concept that has only been in use for a minimal period of Formula One's total existence. Moreover, F1 cars carried numbers before 2014 as well and those are completely ignored. Tvx1 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename Formula One driver numbers and expand. The numbers satisfy WP:GNG,[11][12] and are often associated with specific drivers apparently (e.g. #5 and Nigel Mansell and a list of "Iconic F1 numbers"). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As I pointed out in my rationale, those iconic numbers like Mansell's 5 or Hill's 0 aren't mentioned in this list. It only relates to the 2014 concept. Also, Wikipedia is not a F1 fansite. We're not here to list F1 fans' favorite numbers.Tvx1 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The previous AfD discussion is located here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Formula One driver numbers. The renamed article can currently comfortably accomodate the list within it. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I used to support this list, but I feel it does not do any good and is just a useless trivia as numbers are shown in every season's article. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but it can be expanded to explain the current and past numbering systems and number associations (with a renaming and scope broadening). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That would mean that every single number from the past should be listed and that is not needed as every F1 season's article has them listed. Why do you feel the need to duplicate the same information elsewhere? – Sabbatino (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Upon consideration, meets WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid. This is evidenced in part by the 5,273 page views the page has received in the last thirty days. Full disclaimer: Note that I closed the previous AfD discussion, located here, as no consensus in February 2016, but this does not preclude me from contributing to this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just how is this a navigational aid? The numbers don't link anywhere. It's duplication anyway. All those numbers are already listed in the season articles as well.Tvx1 16:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Calirty and NA1000. L3X1 (distant write) 21:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And AFD is not a vote. You need to give guideline and or policy based arguments to justify your stance. Pure votes are likely to be disregarded by the person who closes this. Thus simply put "clarity" is not a valid reason to keep (or delete) an article. Especially as this content is already present in other places.Tvx1 21:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I haven't read about the policy re: VFD. I suppose you're going to appeal this one as well? And it passes NOTSTATS. L3X1 (distant write)

02:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Oh, and last one out of me: WP:BLUDGEON. 02:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's my good right to query contributions which are simply WP:ILIKEIT votes or don't make sense at all. Passing NOTSTATS is not a trump card to an article. In fact nobody quoted NOSTATS as a reason for deletion. There are other more pressing issued than that. Most importantly this essentially duplication.Tvx1 16:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very trivial has little appeal beyond the Formula 1 fans. Unless my brain fails me, thats an ATA. The numbers that are used during the current season are always listed in the article for the current season and in the drivers' and constructors' articles. I assume in your rationale you are referring to the list topping up 2016 Formula One season? This list is for 2017 drivers. Your whole rational is filled with ATA. Every time you accuse us of ILIKEIT, it looks like you DONTLIKEIT.L3X1 (distant write) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't know what we're discussing here. This list here is not dedicated to a particular season at all. There a couple drivers who don't drive in 2017 in it. And when I write current season, I mean current season. The current season is 2017, not 2016. Regardless it's duplication, all those numbers are already listed in the articles on the seasons during which these drivers drove.Tvx1 19:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote The following lists all Formula One driver numbers currently claimed, as of the 2017 season: If there are drivers who don't drive in 2017, why are they on a current list? L3X1 (distant write) 20:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this is NOT a vote. Give a justified reason why it should be kept. Also read WP:ILIKEIT.Tvx1 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Wright (musician)[edit]

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

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

Advertorially skewed WP:BLP of a musician, which is nowhere close to reliably sourced. The only potential passage of NMUSIC here is that he's placed songs in TV shows, but NMUSIC criteria have to be supported by reliable sources and are not passed just because an article asserts it. And the only "sources" present here are video clips, one of which is on YouTube and neither of which are about the subject. This was actually nominated at MFD as a stale draftspace draft, but then got arbitrarily moved into mainspace without a proper AFC review, thus forcing premature closure of the MFD discussion -- but it doesn't contain any properly sourced indication of notability that would allow it to stay in articlespace either. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I must have looked at this 20 times over several days. Couldn't make my mind up about it, when it was copied from userspace. A last look at sources, I can see that WP:BLP sources are not there. May be a pseudo musician, which from personal experience I can attest there is lots and lots of them, but notable, no. scope_creep (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete fails GNG BobLaRouche (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not salting as it's been created only once at least under this name Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOTpay[edit]

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

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

No evidence that this software meets WP:N, with virtually no coverage found by Google or Google News. The awards cited in the article, as far as I can tell, were won by the associated company Gala Tent, but there's no indication in the sources that were given (which I mostly removed before noticing the mention in the article of Gala Tent, which a couple of the sources did attest to) that they were for this software. Perhaps Gala Tent is notable but SOTpay isn't. Largoplazo (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more sources on the subject and have updated them to the article, maybe they will help. Also note that SOTpay is a product of Gala Tent. --Lingveno (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SOTpay is a product of Gala Tent, but every product of a notable company (assuming Gala Tent is notable) isn't itself automatically notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Largoplazo (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and salt Gala Tent and its owner Jason Mace (who's deleted article was also recently recreated at Jason Mace in what seems to be part of the same spam campaign) have spammed Wikipedia in the past. Anything connected with them is to be treated with great suspicion. This is all clearly written by he same person/people. One key "tell" is that they use the phrase "Chamber of Commerce" as if it uniquely identifies a body rather than being a description for many hundreds or thousands of different bodies worldwide. It's weird and distinctive. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt a long, long way off meeting WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. SmartSE (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Game Test Modes[edit]

Electronic Game Test Modes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Copy-paste move of Bop It Test Modes, which had been subject of an AFD. Clearly falls under WP:NOTHOWTO, PROD removed by page creator without comment. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject was already brought to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bop It Test Modes, and was well on its way to deletion, before the discussion was circumvented by blanking that original page, and recreating it here. All of the same arguments for deletion included on that AFD still apply here. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (and my previous nom vote!) and hopefully this loophole in the AfD process is closed. No improvements at all from what it was under the old title. Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a guide or manual. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and others, Wikipedia is not a guide. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ryan Fox[edit]

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

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

Even if you want to argue that subject technically passes WP:NACTOR #1 via Henry Danger and Jake and the Never Land Pirates (a proposition that I do not agree with), the subject clearly fails WP:BASIC – I could find only one very passing mention at Deadline, and found nothing at all at Variety, THR, EW, LA Times, NY Times, or TVLine. It appears to still be way WP:TOOSOON for this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only sourced to IMDB; fails NACTOR BobLaRouche (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GrokOla (software)[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability for this wiki software. Yaron K. (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems to possibly fail WP:PROMO, it seems pretty buzzword-y. Can't find notable mention of it from Google searches, outside of promo pages and the like. bojo | talk 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - anything that says it is a "solution" while not having anything to do with solutions is suspect to be marketing cut-n-paste. Too soon anyway, if only recently "launched". Note also that a search on the company gets noise from a more notable Keyhole, Inc W Nowicki (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Murphy (businessman)[edit]

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

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

no indication of notability, virtually no sources able to be found at all, given sources do not pass muster ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON. He played for the Patriots. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've been trying to find anything to link the Bill Murphy of the GATA to the Bill Murphy that played for the Patriots, and I'm not finding anything except WP mirrors. Nevermind, I found his blog at https://www.lemetropolecafe.com/ ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, so then this would be him. Well, then, he played briefly but well in the NFL, keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Yup. Is there any formality to withdrawing an AfD or can I just close this discussion and remove the notice from the article? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to do it for you. Even though I've !voted it's a pretty straightforward and unopposed withdrawal. The Patriots angle was not clear at all when this Afd opened. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because he played in the NFL. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMail[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with any of the products of a similar name. The WP:COI is obvious. Kleuske (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there,I have just created an article which simply described a software solution called EasyMail. This is the URL: [[13]]. The page described - what features offers this software products, what is its history and what technologies are used. BUT I received an email saying that the article will be deleted. Why is that? Please give me further explanation because I need to know what is wrong with my article. I have seen many articles like this one which follow the same architecture and type of content and I didn't know that I do something wrong.

There are two main source which can be used as a proof of my words. The first one is the website of the project which is [[14]]. Another source which is even more reliable is the GitHub repository [[15]]. On the website is described what the product offers and also in the GitHub repository can be seen everything which is developed since 2015. The project has three contributors and 35 different people are following it. Also, the project has been presented to Mailjet during this event here [[16]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel.tashev (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavel.tashev: Coverage in subject independent reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines, chapters in books about this application not written by its developers etc.) is needed to estabilish notability. Project website and GitHub repository are self-published sources not useable to prove notability. Pavlor (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete its a pretty generic name, and the sources that I can find do not appear to be talking about this product, and the products that they are talking about might not even be notable. In short, it fails our general notability guideline and the post above combined with information on the site make it pretty clear this is a promotional article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Pure advertising of non notable product. Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No citations that provide evidence of notability. My own searches have also found none. And any article using "solution" in its PR sense, twice in the first two sentences, was probably written by a marketing person. Maproom (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. Also fails WP:GNG AND WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although the article has a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, I don't think it'd fall under the CSD for promotional content. There's a few promotional sentences but not enough to be unambiguously advertising. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Douieb[edit]

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

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

Non-notable martial artist - this was a contested PROD without explanation but does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE Peter Rehse (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or any SNG. None of the sources given are independent and my own search didn't find any significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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