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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeet Paul Choudary[edit]

Sangeet Paul Choudary (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 author is not notable. There are only two events that are of note, but edits continue to cite every single article written by the author anywhere, including ones in paid sources like Forbes.

The article has historically been written as a resume, with no clarity on notability.

Lastly, all prior edits seem to have been made from one IP address based in Singapore, including the provision of a unlicensed portrait imaged that appears to have been created for the subject in a private setting. This suggests an attempt at an autobiography, which a Wikipedia policy strongly discourages. UserGlobal7 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator has deleted substantial sourced content--the subject has been referenced and interviewed by numerous publications. Usually the concern is that WP:COI propels promotional biographies, and if that's the case here, it can be pared. But this is the first instance I've seen of an AfD begun by a WP:SPA, and one wonders what's behind the nearly total denuding of the article and this nomination. A restoration of at least some of the sourced content would be proper. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can this be speedy closed without prejudice; the nomination makes absolutely no points that are valid deletion criteria. More specifically: 'only two events' != 1BLP; 'cite every single article' suggests, at first glance, that further sources may therefore exist; while WP:NOTCV is a worthy call for deletion, the stubbing has dealt with that; where an IP is based, and the copyright status of one picture, is irrelevant. And whilst it is true that autobiographies are discouraged, we don't automatically delete them; it's what the Save changes button is for :) So, this is a malformed nom. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 03:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I second the speedy close recommendation & concerns of the previous commenters, especially WP:SPA. A look at Special:Contributions/UserGlobal7 reveals that the nominator appears to have a grudge against the subject, and their edits could be seen as an edit war. Why did they tear it apart just to AfD? – gwendy (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Same thing as the article deleted last month. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Ryan Wolf[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited either mention his name, or have one sentence about his being the official DJ of the Cleveland Browns. No charted music. No awards. Unable to locate any significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Neal[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. His name is mentioned a few places as a songwriter: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. However, there seem to be no significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was looking at this one too. Most of what I found was I similar to the sources listed by the nominator, and nothing contributed to showing notability. The one source in the article is a malformed google search, and is probably intended to be the google book listing https://books.google.ca/books/about/Chicago_Soul.html?id=2kkcmS0AzMEC&redir_esc=y I don't know how reliable this source is or how much it actually says about the subject.

I did find a few sources which could be used in the article if it survives AFD (passing mention of his death in a fire in Billboard and the Chicago Tribune), but nothing to show notability. Meters (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. That book source mentions a Marshall Neil in passing, and no Marshall Neal at all (as far as I can see). No other reliable sources with indepth attention for him seem to exist. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added my input to discussion because I am unfamiliar with the way this platform works and unsure where to post my replies. I am about to search for tutorials to instruct me on how to navigate through this website.

Marshall Neal's name was misspelled and his occupation was incorrectly noted on and in several newspaper articles, publications and in the book titled, "Chicago Soul." One Chicago newspaper misspelled his last name while reporting his death. During that time period, spell-checking was done manually. Unfortunately, many of his "notable" contributions are archived and cannot be easily discovered *via* an internet search ... months of in-depth research would be required. I'm unsure as to how to prove my reliability as a source. However, for verification purposes, I would like to submit the following links for consideration. I included "proof" that he indeed was a songwriter on A.C. Reeds song "Boogalo Tramp" (which is also, always misspelled online & which was recorded under USA Records) ... yet "the edit was still deleted" from A.C. Reeds page. Also, the information on Wikipedia: USA Records, is not accurate. I have first-hand knowledge of this. Paul Glass and Marshall Neal play major roles re: USA Records. If my article does not survive AFD, I would like it to be known that my only intent was to provide "new and unknown" information, and to hopefully contribute to correcting "misinformation" that is falsely being represented as facts.

Various Articles & Publications that mention Marshall Neal:

• blues-sessions.com/williemabon.php

• CashBox Publication PDF links:
  • CB-1958-02-01.pdf
  • CB-1958-10-18.pdf
  • CB-1959-09-05.pdf
• "Boogalo Tramp" (Nike Records: Aaron Corthen *aka* A.C. Reed, Marshall Neal & Tony Gideon)
• Links RE: Boogaloo Tramp Vinyl images:
  • goo.gl/images/oewb7h
  • goo.gl/images/ZHjT86
• Boogaloo Tramp Video links:
  • youtu.be/YqZudLuGUsE
• Paul Glass (Allstate Distributors Co. & USA Records) info links:
  • articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-04-04/news/8601240697_1_independent-record-labels-worked
  • articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-17/news/ct-met-cy-gold-obit-20131117_1_chicago-area-promoter-lewy
  • soul-source.co.uk/soulforum/topic/288207-u-s-a-records-chicago-paul-glass/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unique freaq (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Unique freaq (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Brief discussion of sources and personal knowledge with pointers to WP:V, WP:RS, musical notability, and WP:COI (possibly an issue) on article creator's talk. Analysis of new links:

• blues-sessions: just says "with various producers like Al Perkins or Marshall Neal"
• CashBox Publication: No idea where to find these files.
• Boogaloo Tramp Vinyl images: nothing but two pictures of CDs that credit "Neal"
• Boogaloo Tramp Video: a posting of performances with static images. One image is again of the same CD as before. The performances are presumably copyvio.
• Paul Glass articles: First one and last one make no mention of the article's subject. Second one is an invalid link.

So, nothing here. Meters (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to thank each of you for your assistance on this matter. I have added additional information and links to the article with hopes that it will be able to remain on Wikipedia. I will continue to add any info that will possibly meet at least one of the Wiki's listed criteria for Composers and Lyricists (i.e. Composer and/or Lyricist must have credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.) that I come across during my research of Marshall Neal.

Thank You, Unique Freaq Unique freaq (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT I wish to include the following link regarding meeting the criteria for notability RE: Composers and Lyricist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:COMPOSER&redirect=no

Unique freaq (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "notable composition" would be a song or similar which is at the very least notable enough to have its own article, not any song by a notable musician. I don't see evidence that he has had writing credits on any such composition Fram (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the new additions to the article and I'm still not seeing anything that shows notability, just a few passing mentions of him in his work in the music industry and a few song credits. Was anything ever written about him? Meters (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you all so much! I'm researching to see if I can locate any online articles written on him that I can use as sources. The notable composition that both he and Frank Lindsey were a part of, was re-titled from: "You Can Belong To Me" -to- "I Need To Belong To Someone" - thirteen days after it's original copyrighted date - both of their names were omitted (uncredited) - leaving Curtis Mayfield as sole songwriter. It's unfortunate because, that is the one song that is notable enough to have it's own article, yet ... he and Lindsey were not credited thirteen days later. The song had already been written, recorded and released by: Jerry Butler, months prior to it being legally copyrighted. I do understand that Wikipedia has to be able to verify the content within a bio. This is my first article on Wiki (I'm a Newbie), and it is also my first subject/study - who's achievements and notability are more difficult to prove than I would have ever imagined. However, I will continue to dig and research. The following article regarding his death was discovered in Cashbox Magazine:

https://archive.org/stream/cashbox34unse_24#page/20/mode/1up

Unique freaq (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Correcting Sentence for Clarification from Previous Comment

Incorrect: "The song had already been written, recorded and released by: Jerry Butler, months prior to it being legally copyrighted."

Correct: The song had already been written, composed & arranged by: Neal, Lindsey & Mayfield, then recorded by: Jerry Butler, and released by Butler's label - months "prior" to it being legally copyrighted.

Unique freaq (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in continuing to link every source that happens to mention his name. The Cashbox ref simply says he was a sales rep and died after the robbery and fire. We already know this, and the source does not help demonstrate his notability. Meters (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arsh Bajwa[edit]

Arsh Bajwa (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)

Actor with a single supporting role. Most of the references do not even mention him. Those that do are passing mentions only. The imdb.com and indianfilmhistory.com listings for him are empty aside from merely mentioning his single role. Edgeweyes (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Edgeweyes, If you check each reference in deep you definitely find Arsh Bajwa's name on each reference link. However he is a new and young actor in bollywood but he is notable enough to keep a Wikipedia page. Forbes, IMDB, Times of India, Business Standard and Filmfare are the trusted resources where his name is clearly mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs) 05:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a WP:TOOSOON all the coverage mentioned by the above editor is not about the subject but about the role as a supporting actor in Running Shaadi.There is deferentially a notability issue and he fails WP:ACTOR too.FITINDIA (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 05:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 05:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's assessment. Citobun (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 10 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 There is consensus that standalone pages are not appropriate. Redirects can be created if users feel them to be needed, but there is not consensus here about that. Vanamonde (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia's 10th Senate district election, 2015[edit]

Virginia's 10th Senate district election, 2015 (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)

Virginia's 29th Senate district election, 2015 (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)

Virginia's 20th House of Delegates district election, 2015 (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)

Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2015 (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)

Virginia's 33rd House of Delegates district election, 2015 (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)

Virginia's 46th House of Delegates district election, 2015 (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)

Virginia's 87th House of Delegates district election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another small cluster of minimally substanced and minimally sourced articles about election results in individual districts. As with the 2017 set listed below, we simply do not need 140 standalone articles about the individual results in each individual house and senate district in a statewide legislative election -- the correct way to handle this is a combination of one overview article about the election as a whole, combined with one base article about each electoral district where all of its election results in all of the elections appear in the same place. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So what happens if we combine all the articles into one, and then, say, Virginia's 29th Senate district election, 2015 ends up being a very long section compared to the other sections; is it then open for people to say, "You need to cut that section down in order to avoid giving it undue weight compared to our coverage of the other 2015 elections"? When there are standalone articles about subtopics (as opposed to one big article about the topic as a whole), are people freer to expand on certain subtopics as much as they want, without needing to worry about WP:UNDUE concerns? Will it be permissible to spin out sections into standalone articles if needed, down the road? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds would that one section ever conceivably become wildly longer than any other section in the article? We make these decisions on the basis of reality, not on the basis of hypothetical spitballing. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not saying don't merge it. You'll notice, I put a "comment" rather than a "keep". I'm just asking what happens if one section gets way larger than the others, for example if we have, say, 30 mostly uncompetitive elections and then 10 somewhat competitive elections, of which a few are so competitive that they attract major resources and attention, justifying a larger section. That sounds like typical Virginia politics, actually. Or sometimes even if a race isn't competitive, there may be something unusual about it that draws national attention, such as a transgender journalist running against a social conservative who introduced a bill regulating transgender access to bathrooms. We can cross that bridge later, if you don't like to speculate. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Completely unnecessary. Can be covered in an article on the election, a specific results article if that gets too big and the electoral district articles. Number 57 08:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above; this is like giving an article for every result by constituency of the Hamburg state election. Pointless and unnecessary (low-traffic in any case), better compiled within a single article. Mélencron (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the closing admin to construe that as supporting a merge and redirect, like what they're doing over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that users will require one, given the low traffic to each individual article. Mélencron (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm merging all the content into the individual constituency articles before it gets deleted. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These are an entirely unnecessary series of articles. They are a content fork that actually makes it more confusing for readers. AusLondonder (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the individual constituency entries in ((Navbox_VAHseDist)). There are valid search terms, and the proposed targets are unlikely to be moved.. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gülnaz Sultan[edit]

Gülnaz Sultan (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 page seems to be another article in the series of fictional Ottoman history which includes creating stories and information about the Ottoman royalty. It was created by a user who doesn't seem to be an expert in Ottoman history and probably contains original research as I couldn't find any information about this woman. There's no mention of her on the sources that I know including this website which lists the spouses and children of the Ottoman sultans. If a reliable source can't be found, the article should be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems to be not only a(nother) fabricated article about a(nother) fictitious character, but the fact that it includes a false list of so-called references that don't even mention her (Alderson writes "none of the names of his wives seems to have been recorded" and doesn't record the names of her alledged sons eg) makes it some kind of vandalism, for which its creator should be blocked.--Phso2 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree, the references fail verification. Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely seems to be fake, no specific references and several basic facts fail verification. Chamboz (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't find evidence of notability.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as with all of these, if no sources can be found, it doesn't pass WP:V. If later sources are found, the page can possibly be recreated. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig MacDonald (ice hockey, born 1982)[edit]

Craig MacDonald (ice hockey, born 1982) (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 per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Drastically fails the current iteration of WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: ... and fails any iteration of NHOCKEY. Journeyman with an ephemeral career in the low minors, the creation of a SPA five years ago, who created two other similar articles on NN minor leaguers, both now up for deletion as well. Ravenswing 04:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur with delete comments above. Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and [{WP:GNG]]. He ended his playing career in 2012. Not that we keep articles on the expectation of possible future content, but it's unlikely he'll be famed for hockey beyond what he's already done, and what he's already done is insufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with above comments Bill McKenna (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Holmberg[edit]

Brett Holmberg (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 only WP:ROUTINE sources. Drastically fails the current iteration of WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: ... and fails any iteration of NHOCKEY. Journeyman with an ephemeral career in the low minors, the creation of a SPA five years ago, who created two other similar articles on NN minor leaguers, both now up for deletion as well. Ravenswing 04:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 10 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 This AFD is a mess; there are any number of IP addresses and throwaway accounts coming by to make arguments that have no relation to policy. Once those have been disregarded, only a handful of comments remain, and the balance of these arguments is that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to keep this. . Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Doctors for Human Rights[edit]

Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (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)

Notability, verifiability, reliable sources Ylleman (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Living in Sweden and following the news and so forth, I have never heard of this organization. The creating account has only really edited this article, and responded with conspiracy theories and mudslinging when relevance was challenged on the talk page. That challenge was not by me, but by (someone who claims to be) a Swedish doctor with an interest in human rights, who had also never heard of the organization. The organization's web page contains no useful information in establishing its relevance on Wikipedia or importance in Swedish society, and of the links provided as sources for the article, only those that refer to pages on the organization's own web site seem to contain any mention of the organization; all others being articles quoting people who may or may not be members. Ylleman (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A huge red flag is the lack of a corresponding page on Swedish Wikipedia.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots and lots of references, but many of them don't mention SWEDHR. I don't want to not-vote until I've checked the article a bit more, but please don't be too impressed by the number of references. Sjö (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After checking the sources. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources are almost without exception trivial coverage, self-published, non-reliable or about something other than SWEDHR. The opinion piece in DN (Sweden Risks Being a Primary Target) is perhaps the best claim towards notability, but it's far from enough. Sjö (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten As SWEDHR today has a proper website, it is enough with short information plus link to the website. - I had totally forgotten this organisation (consisting of only a very small group of people) as it is not visible in the society. It does not try to expand by getting more members, or making it's voice heard. It does not seem to cooperate with other HR organisations. So it does not need that much space on Wikipedia. (And yes, Ylleman, I am a Swedish doctor, still have my certificate although retired from clinical praxis. As editor in chief of the journal AllmänMedicin I have to keep updated on what's happening in the medical society.) Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search reveals that this organization is almost exclusively mentioned on known pro-Russian propaganda sites and blogs. A quick perusal of the topics on the organization's own website shows an exclusive focus on countering the mainstream narrative on issues important to the Russian government. This appears to be a disinformation site. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really relevant to the deletion discussion, is it? We do have articles on organizations that are considered to be propaganda outlets. Sjö (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is apparently nonsense that "it appears to be a disinformation site", as all the claims in the article are backed by reliable sources, so if you have anything to back up your claim with respectable, verifiable sources, you may add it to the article, otherwise it is just your "mudslinging propaganda" about some "exclusive focus on countering the mainstream narrative on issues important to the Russian government"... probably because it counters the mainstream narrative on issues unpleasant to the U.S. government, as a quick perusal of the topics on the organization's own website reveals? :-D It is perfectly legitimate to question and even counter the mainstream narrative (e.g. Amnesty International seems to do it more often than not). Antikapitalista (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact very few of the article's claims are backed by reliable sources (see below).Ylleman (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dabiq and Al-Bayan are propaganda outlets of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They totally deserve to have an article on Wikipedia, since they pass the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Your argument doesn't sound legitimate per Wikipedia's policies. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it should be rewritten accordingly. As it stands, this page is the only thing giving the organization credibility. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the organisation does have scientific / medical credibility, the article mentioning them should certainly persist. They can't possibly be any less significant or less respectable than eg. SOHR. 92.0.184.157 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that an organization that is " frequently quoted by major Western news media, such as Voice of America, Reuters, BBC, CNN and National Public Radio" is less notable than one that has had one or two opinion pieces published? I don't think so. Sjö (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The medical cites speak to the notability of Marcello Ferrada de Noli, the founder, and not to the organization, which claims to work in the area of human rights and not medicine.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet the requirements for notability though the article itself probably needs some work. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be fairly notable... and in the light of the controversies exuding even from this page likely on a path to even greater notability. Given the fact that the article had been here for more than 2 years before someone suggested its deletion on the grounds of insufficient notability (and other reasons with which I will deal later), when it was apparently gaining more notability, seems like an insidious attempt at censorship. Regarding the other 2 reasons (verifiability, reliable sources), they are essentially part of a single issue... and, while there are some issues mentioned above the article... honestly, I do not understand them—they are not mentioned at all on the talk page, no further rationale for them is given in the description of the issues... and they seem to me like blown wildly out of proportions; in fact, some of them are even clearly misleading and false, such as that "the neutrality of the article is disputed", when it is not, as there is no such thing on its talk page. Indeed, about a half of the sources are primary [less than a half (and that includes the self-published ones) if the medical ones are not counted, more than a half if they are counted, but they are (mostly) really a primary source to the notes in the article referring to medical journals, which should be considered as proper secondary sources and the notes as references—but I have not reviewed the journals because I do not have them.] Still, the other half of the references is perfectly fine... and I have the impression that the article was written by a rigorous and diligent scholar who felt that every single statement needed to be backed by some reference. A greater diversity of the sources would definitely help the article, but it is certainly not fit for deletion. Antikapitalista (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on notability does not itself make the subject notable.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article has not been discussed for two years does not support the notion that the subject is notable. The fact that there have been no meaningful changes since late 2015, on the other hand, suggests that the organization is either not very active or not very notable since any activities it might engage in fails to generate enough coverage to make people update its Wikipedia entry.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presented my arguments at the beginning of the discussion. I think the article fails on notability because the organization has had no impact, and on verifiability because the sources either don't mention the organization or are links to the organization itself or to private blogs run by its members. I didn't initiate a discussion on the talk page simply because that's for improving an article's quality and I think there is no improving it, it should be deleted.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your next argument concerns the issues flagged by Ceannlann gorm. That user argued for keeping but reworking the article, and in that spirit flagged multiple issues. That's not part of the deletion discussion per se; if the article survives, the issues should be addressed. But since I think it should be deleted, I won't go into that discussion.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may well have the impression that the article was written by a rigurous and diligent scholar. I have the impression it was written by someone who was trying to make the article appear to meet Wikipedia's standards by padding the reference list.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the organization is "credited with reporting on the impact of war atrocities" is supported by two notes which in turn become references to the organization's web site, and to a Twitter post, respectively.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the chairman (not the organization!) "formally presented the candidacy of whitleblowers... to the Nobel Peace Prize" is supported by a newspaper article which only states that the professor wishes to do so.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that board members "publicly demanded that the Swedish authorities provide a legal definition" of the case against Julian Assange is supported by a self-published PDF which does not mention the organization, and by an opinion piece in a newspaper which likewise does not mention the organization.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "SWEDHR has also advocated against allegedly human-rights breaches on Swedish cardiologist-surgeoon Fikru Maru" is supported by two articles on the Swedish public service radio's web site, neither of which mentions the organization.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "Swedish medical journal Dagens Medicin referred an open plea on the case sent by the organization" is false; the article on the Dagens Medicin site only states that the organization had issued a press release to the effect that an open letter had been sent.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the organization was mentioned in the Globe and Mail in connection with Valentina Lista is backed by the source.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the organization was mentioned "at Swedish medical journals" in connection with the Kunduz MSF hospital bombing is backed by the sources.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The organization "raised its concern about potential human rights catastrophes associated with the risk of nuclear conflicts" by publishing an opinion piece on NewsVoice, which meets the Wikipedia definition of a questionable source: "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts." The fact that the reference links to the comments section, not the article header, suggests to me that the editor is more interested in directing traffic to a web site than providing proper references to the article.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From that we're left with three mentions in reputable sources. The mentions in (reputable newspaper) Dagens Nyheter listed in the "Debate and controversies" section are all opinion pieces, in which the authors may give themselves any title they wish. DN has itself never reported on the organization in a news article. All the other references are to the organization's own site or to various blogs.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After taking a look in Google news and some of the articles sources, I'm prewtty convincede that the article meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has received coverage after the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and its respective annoncement. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 15:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems to me to fail on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. Could you please be specific in exactly what coverage this organization has received in the wake of the attack? Ylleman (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The organization exists - on their page there are statemens of this organization published. Obviously their position is opposition to current political regime in Europe and an alternative opinion to the mainstream in the mass media. To support the diversity of opinions the information about this organization should be presented in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.75.117 (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "strong" votes. There are votes, and arguments -- some of which are weak. Existence is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia, notability must be demonstrated. Ylleman (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the FAKE organization owned by Russia Today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.109.6.184 (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A whois lookup yields that the site is registered to the chairman through one of Sweden's regular web hosting companies. Please provide a source to back up your claim, and stop vandalizing the article.Ylleman (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this is the discussion on whether or not to delete the article. If you wish to comment on the contents outside of that discussion, please do so on the article's Talk page.Ylleman (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The arguments for deletion amount to : I DONT LIKE the organization nor the publications used as references. WPBut actually, the sources would otherwise be seen as sufficient, and we do follow NPOV, which does not necessarily mean Our POV. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Could you please go through my list of claims above and note for each why what I argue is a non-reliable source is, in fact, a reliable one? Ylleman (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am not arguing NPOV, I'm arguing notability. The neutrality flag was added after the article was proposed for deletion. For the record, I have no issue with the stated aims of this organization. I do have an issue with the article, since the organization has had zero impact in Sweden (or anywhere else), and thus cannot possibly meet the notability requirements for inclusion on the English-language Wikipedia. Ylleman (talk) 05:06, 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 Merge/redirect. Vanamonde (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Riggleman[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a businessman, whose only substantive or reliably sourced indication of notability is a withdrawn candidacy in a gubernatorial primary. As always, if you cannot show or properly source that someone was already eligible for a Wikipedia article under some other inclusion criterion, then he does not get an article just for having been a candidate in a primary election -- a person has to win the general election to get an article if he wasn't already notable enough for an article. And campaign coverage does not in and of itself get him over WP:GNG, either, because campaign coverage always exists for all candidates for anything, so it falls under WP:ROUTINE unless it demonstrates the candidate as significantly more notable than the norm. For added bonus, there's a WP:COI issue here as the article has been directly edited by the subject himself. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017. Content should be preserved somewhere, although perhaps not in a standalone bio. The conflict-of-interest editing is not really an issue; when I saw that I speedily reverted to the pre-COI version, that that shouldn't really play a role in the AfD. Neutrality^talk 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very little of what is in this article needs to be preserved. No claim to notability under WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect and selective merge from history, per Pater night below. Failed candidate for a nomination. Nothing more here to make him notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect a brief addition to the "businessman" description at Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017. Even failed candidates can be valid search terms for the elections they run in, as long as there is RS coverage, which there is here. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:56, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alecs Nastoiu[edit]

Alecs Nastoiu (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)

Once we strip away the puffery that suffocates this "article", we're left with a single, rather thin notability claim: namely, that the subject directed one film that won a couple of prizes at some obscure festivals (Hollywood International Film Festival, Miami Independent Film Festival - note the red links), and received a smattering of coverage in mainly dubious sources for it. On balance, that doesn't strike me as reaching the usual notability bar for film directors. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A film festival at least needs to be notable for any award at it to be notable. Awards need to be notable for winning them to add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. List of links, reads like a CV, nothing suggests the individual meets WP:CREATIVE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Article appears to have been written by either the subject or an associate. SamsaK (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Bible Chapel Windsor[edit]

Harvest Bible Chapel Windsor (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 church. No GNews hits for either "Harvest Bible Chapel Windsor" or "Southwood Community Church". StAnselm (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and reads like an advertisement. --Joshualouie711^talk 01:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - no conceivable legitimate claim to notability. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Individual local churches do not get an automatic presumption of notability on Wikipedia just for existing, but there's no evidence of this one being the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — the only citation here, until I poleaxed it just now, was an invalid WP:CIRCULAR "reference" to another Wikipedia article. And yeah, this reads like an advertisement to boot — "unapologetic preaching, unashamed adoration, unceasing prayer, and unafraid witness"? Holy WP:NPOV violation, Jehosaphat. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A typical NN church as far as I can see. I doubt this qualifies for speedy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus, in accord with standard practice DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Elston[edit]

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

David Elston (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)

Whether this article remains has already been discussed on the article's Talk page. Elston's main claim of any note is his (uncontested) election as deputy leader of a quite minor UK political party. He's also standing for election this May, which may be a reason for the recent flurry of editing activity. However, the independent news coverage about him mentions him only in passing and I can't see multiple examples of reliable, independent coverage which talk about him in any depth. Perhaps the best solution would be to redirect to Pirate Party UK. But effectively he's a very minor local politician in his own village, so deletion would be understandable! Sionk (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The election was contested, so I believe we can strike that from the discussion. Other points are worth discussing however. Drowz0r (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I can see where conventionally Sionk's assessments could make sense in some consideration of notability in regards to fair democratic political societies. However, it would be appropriate to correct the initial misassumption and oversight by the honorable editor, that Elston's position as deputy leader of the Pirate Party UK was uncontested, this is simply not true. Further Elston is an incumbent government official of the United Kingdom. These points would already be enough in regards to meeting notability. In Elston's talk section the honorable editor, also quite rightly replied to my comment, stating that "Wikipedia isn't to promote people from obscurity, but to write about people who are already notable." However, what may have been missed here, is that notably is not the same as fame. There is a reason why these two separate words exist. Though they can often be confused by those not attuned to the historic significance of sometimes obscure seeming facts. Hence relative obscurity or minor appearance, do not automatically equate to the subject being non-notable. I would also suggest that counter to the argument, that it is in part the place of an encyclopedia to promote obscure yet notable facts. Thus, in the given circumstances, there is no question whatsoever that Elston is indeed notable. In terms of discussing political subjects in the current media landscape, that has now proven to be biased, and often unreliable in regards to dealing with political matter, this article also exhibits more than adequate reliable sources. Especially considering that the Pirate party is most concerned by the management of information itself. Thus, while the honorable editor, has stated that he believes "multiple examples of reliable coverage do not exist," it is still implied here by the nominator, that a degree of reliable sources and coverage do exist, and if one checks more throughly, it further transpires that there are indeed multiple examples and media interviews present. These reliable sources are more than adequate for notability. Otherwise, it would appear we are setting different standards of referencing for political information, than other subjects on Wikipedia. Which is certainly counter to the vision of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales. Who himself has covered the concept of obscurity and notability, stating that there exists a "danger of snap judgments particularly of the variety I have never heard of this, therefore it can't be important," when his article Mzoli's, was initially nominated for deletion. Notability is not an on and off switch. It occurs in degrees, and Elston, while he maybe no Donald Trump, yet, certainly falls within this degree of notability. Further, what propose does it really serve, to delete information about a government office holder, who is also a deputy leader of a British political party, and a candidate in an up coming election? Why was not the article nominated for deletion prior to the candidacy? If there is any doubt whatsoever that the article maybe targeted as consequence of a candidacy, then it must be kept, as this is a most dangerous course, with potential cataclysmic ramifications in the history of the use of wikipedia in political context in regards to discrimination and censorship, as the nature of the wikipedia project now transcends traditional encyclopedias, and is often even used by journalists to determine whether to cover a topic or not. If there exists even a potential of targeting to diminish grassroots political movements in this manner, one must air on the side of caution and acknowledge notability given it is these reliable journalistic sources, we are meant to be ruled by here in the first place. Indeed Elston is notable, and this article should be kept. ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {StephenNightingale))}$ ^{(${\displaystyle Talk}$)} 00:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, Elston is not a member of the Government, he is a community councillor in rural Wales. Secondly, I did not imply there were examples in existence of in-depth, reliable secondary coverage about Elston. In fact quite the opposite, I've searched for them and can't find any. If there are substantive news articles etc. about Elston, please bring them to light. Sionk (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Once again the honorable editor is mistaken in judgement, please allow me to direct you to Wikipedia where it states that "A Councillor is a member of a local government council," indeed. Simply being from "rural Wales" or a member of local government there is not means enough for discrimination in the United Kingdom, as all of Wales whether rural or urban is an integral part of the sovereign United Kingdom on par with all others locales including Gibraltar. Thus, David Elston is indeed notable. ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {StephenNightingale))}$ ^{(${\displaystyle Talk}$)} 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As Sionk stated above and in the article itself, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote unknown politicians from obscurity. Quality over quantity has to be the consideration with regards to the sources - most a really only mentions in passing and others are simple paragraphs that don't establish any notability. The mere fact that the page already exists and the fact that it may otherwise be well written doesn't preclude it from being unsuitable for Wikipedia. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't state that? Drowz0r (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the response was directed towards Sionk instead and I copied in the wrong name. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The honorable editor is correct that the "purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote unknown politicians from obscurity," however the purpose of wikipedia is defiantly not to target and discriminate against "unknown politicians," sabotaging their chance of further discovery, in the current political media climate, if they are indeed notable, as David Elston the deputy party leader of the Pirate Party clearly is. Unknown, or perhaps disapproved by some, does not mean that the subject is not notable. I have already mentioned that the founder of Wikipedia Jimbo Wales's edict on the "danger of snap judgments particularly of the variety I have never heard of this, therefore it can't be important,". Thus, being ignorant of a subject is absolutely an incorrect biases to begin judging notability. Clearly here it's quite obvious the subject is a member of the local government with many reliable sources for anyone who wishes to read diligently. ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {StephenNightingale))}$ ^{(${\displaystyle Talk}$)} 14:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete an "unknown polituician" is default not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The purpose of wikipedia is to inform the public about the world around them. In this way it is essential to have minority parties and their leaders on wikipedia to ensure that the public is fully informed. David Elston may not be notorious at the moment. However he still needs to be repesented to ensure that anyone looking to learn more about the PPUK is fully informed about the leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsykesvoyage (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely fails WP:BASIC. Has not received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Obviously fails WP:NPOL as a micro-level community councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being deputy leader of a minor political party is no automatic guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia, and neither is being a community councillor for a local municipal government — in Wales, the lowest level of government that guarantees inclusion for an officeholder is the National Assembly for Wales, not any local town or city council. And Wikipedia's role is not to help minor political parties publicize themselves and their leadership, either. If he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG, then there would be a case for inclusion, but the sourcing present here is entirely too dependent on blogs, primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, with almost nothing that actually contributes toward a compelling GNG case. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pirate_Party_UK#Leadership, where he is mentioned as the party's deputy leader. This doesn't need it's own page, but it's a valid search term for the party itself. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:59, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MonaBar[edit]

MonaBar (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)

Originally created as a puff piece, after culling promo all we're left with is one promotional sentence and a single link to a mention in a listicle. Searching google news gives exactly 0 hits and other searches turn up no coverage - also searched under their new name Spreever and same thing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, on the basis of the one article that mentions it (only 3 lines) around the time of its release, it doesn't seem to have been noticed much. I can't find anything else independent and reliable online. Sionk (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Same concerns as nom. I erroneously CSD'd it but this is perhaps a better arena for its discussion. I went through a few cashback sites, expectedly quite a few had promo and coi issues, but this was the only one that was considerably below notability. The earlier incarnation of this prior to my pruning/removing of promotional content can be seen here, you can see even in that form it is still below WP:NCORP or even a generous application of WP:GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 21:29, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Townsend[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate in a state legislative election. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won; if you cannot demonstrate and source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election to get an article because of the election. Of course the article will be recreated in November if she wins her seat, but nothing stated or sourced here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the case is stronger for keeping this article than for keeping the Elizabeth Guzman article, because Townsend got nominated in 2015 by the Democrats, which is sort of like winning a mini-election. Combine that with the notability of the election itself, which is considered one of the stronger pickup opportunities for the Democrats in Virginia, and she's more notable than the typical state legislative candidate. From a WP:IAR standpoint, I will also say, Townsend ran in two elections, so it's helpful to consolidate all that information into one article rather than duplicate it in both Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2015 and Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2017. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not get over the notability bar just for running in more than one election; at a guess, a good half of all unsuccessful candidates for office have tried more than just once. And if you think an editor whose first-ever contribution under this username was just 16 hours ago is going to somehow have the magical new insight that convinces thousands of established editors that 16 years worth of established Wikipedia practice regarding politicians has been totally wrong all that time, then I've got news for you. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless someone can show she's got a high profile in Virginia for doing something other than lose elections, albeit quite narrowly at times. Perhaps she needs to sack her publicity team! The timing of this article suggests it's in advance of her campaign later this year. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate for office. No other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong delete candidates for state legislatures are never ever notable for that alone. They need something else. The routine coverae of state legislature candidates is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 10 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 merge to Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017[edit]

Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017 (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)

Virginia's 13th House of Delegates district election, 2017 (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)

Virginia's 22nd House of Delegates district election, 2017 (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)

Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2017 (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)

Virginia's 32nd House of Delegates district election, 2017 (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)

Virginia's 42nd House of Delegates district election, 2017 (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)

Virginia's 50th House of Delegates district election, 2017 (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)

Virginia's 67th House of Delegates district election, 2017 (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)

Virginia's 89th House of Delegates district election, 2017 (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)

Merge all to Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017. This is a statewide election of all houses in the House of Delegates, so we do not need a separate standalone article for each individual district -- we do this in the case of individual special elections that are not part of a larger statewide or national event, and thus have no parent article that they can be discussed in, but in a statewide general election we do not create a comprehensive series of 100 separate election-in-district articles for each individual district -- we create one article about the statewide election, and include the local results in the district's base article. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge the small articles, keep the big articles (if any). I think that it's reasonable to have a separate article for each House of Delegates election in which there are at least two major party candidates, as there will tend to be enough media coverage in those cases to meet the WP:GNG. I don't think there will be space in Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017 for all the information, especially for some of the more detailed election articles. For example, where an incumbent is stepping down, there are often a number of candidates from both parties competing in the primaries, leading to a lot of coverage there, and then there will be additional stories as the election moves into the general election stage. Democrats will also be pouring a lot of resources into several Delegate races this year that they think they can flip to their side, or where they are trying to unseat a candidate they particularly dislike (as in Virginia's 13th House of Delegates district), so that too is already generating a lot of coverage in some cases. The other option would be to merge content into the main article for each district, but there's not enough space there, either, because these districts have electoral histories going back for dozens of elections. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50 US states. Generally at least 100 districts per state house, with more than 400 house districts in a couple of the New England states. Elections every two to four years. State senates too. Add 435 federal House districts, elections every two years. Then do the same thing for Canada's 10 provincial and three territorial legislatures and its 338 seats in the House of Commons. Pace the United Kingdom (Westminster + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland!), Australia (federal plus six states), Ireland, Germany (federal plus states), France, Italy, India (federal plus states), Poland, New Zealand, South Africa and every other country on earth with democratic elections — resulting in several hundred thousand of these existing within one election cycle. That's not sustainable or maintainable in any way, shape or form, which is why we don't do it. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not totally unheard of to have separate articles about Congressional district elections, as in the case of Texas's 22nd congressional district election, 2008, which wasn't a special election. It's not the norm, but it can happen, if someone wants to add enough enough information on the topic, that it reaches a point where it needs to be spun out. At the federal level, it's theoretically totally doable to have a separate article about every contested U.S. House race, every two years. The only reason it isn't done is that not enough editors have stepped forward to put in that work of article-writing, to flesh out those sections to the point that they could stand alone as separate articles.

At the state level, it could be done as well, because the sources are probably there to support separate articles for each of the contested seats. But again, there's usually a lack of editors to actually add the content, so that's the only reason it hasn't happened yet. But it probably should happen, in those instances where there are editors available. 2,500 articles a year ( ( 100 contested elections / state ) * ( 1 election / 2 years ) * ( 50 states / union ) ) for U.S. state legislative elections isn't really that many.

In thinking about it, maybe a merger is in order for the shorter articles, but I think it should be without prejudice against spinning out some of the articles later if the sections get too big. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is too many. You forgot the part about how that number also has to be multiplied by Canada and Germany and Australia and New Zealand and South Africa and France and the United Kingdom and dozens of other countries which also have contested democratic elections at multiple layers of government. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but the French are probably just going to add stuff about French elections to the French Wikipedia. How many species are there? 2 million to 10¹², according to global biodiversity? But Wikipedia has undertaken to write articles about all of them, if possible, to the extent enough information about them is available to give each their own article. They even created a whole wiki for it. I think the rationale is, eventually editors will get to covering all of them, because there's a finite number of species, and editors just find that kind of content really fascinating to write about. How many editor-hours will that take, though, to complete that project; and how easy will it be to maintain all those pages? It boggles the mind, but we can do it! Or, at any rate, they can do it (since I'm not getting involved in that project).

The only reason we can't aspire to have an article about every state legislative election that ever happened, is that we know that no one cares about Virginia's 1st House of Delegates district election, 1924, and chances are, no one ever will. But what if they did care! Heh. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be surprised to learn that (a) there are anglophones living in France, and (b) people who don't live in France care about French elections too. Things are not notable only in the primary language of their own home country; if a topic is notable enough to have an article on wiki-fr then it's automatically notable enough to have an article on wiki-en too. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that major French elections, like the French Presidential election, get coverage on all the Wikipedias. However, it's also common that an article that exists on, say, the French Wikipedia won't exist on the English Wikipedia, if it's of little interest in the anglosphere. And vice versa; many topics on the English Wikipedia don't exist on the French Wikipedia because, for example, hardly anyone in the French-speaking world cares about Bob Marshall. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all These are totally unnecessary and it's not reasonable under in any sense of the word to keep them. Detailed results can still be presented in Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017, or if that gets too big Results of the Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017, as well as the articles on the individual constituencies. This is how it's done elsewhere on Wikipedia. Number 57 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much about the results being detailed, as it is all the other stuff involved, like debates, fundraising, endorsements, issues, candidate background, etc., which would, with successive elections, eventually make the articles on the individual constituencies get too big. But, if it's desired to wait till if/when they actually do get too big before breaking them out, I guess it's not a major problem, since we can still have a redirect for convenient linking from other articles and templates, if needed. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to simply give a summary result of elections table with suitable links to the relevant page. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above, there's not much to add. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the conversation above. Detailed articles about specific races can always be spun out, if an editor care to develop those article. Otherwise, it makes sense to have one main article to cover the election cycle.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom and above editors. It actually makes more sense, and is easier on anyone researching the subject, to have all the information in a single article. If, at some point the article becomes too lengthy, then an article split would be warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom and above edit. Curated some of these pages when created and don't see any reason the little info each contained if/any couldn't all be consolidated in one page. Phil (talk) 04:45, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Enrique Díaz Félix[edit]

Luis Enrique Díaz Félix (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 right-of-center former Mexican "municipal president" (equivalent of a Mayor) Fails WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES as a WP:GNG-failing mayor of a city that is too small to provide him intrinsic notability. There is no Spanish-wiki version, which says something about his notability. Created by a now–blocked editor. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Rosarito Beach is certainly large enough that a mayor would be accepted as notable if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not large enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing in the absence of solid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-351b[edit]

Kepler-351b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are no citations, no publications specifically about the planet, and this article really isn't that significant. SpaceDude777 (talk) March 19, 2017, 7:20 UTC

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This discussion was not created with the proper template. I remain neutral on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 19:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found no significant coverage (the only portion of WP:NASTRO that appears likely to apply to exoplanets) of this planet in either technical or lay publications, but I'll reserve judgement in case someone comes up with something. For now, it is worth noting that the article says something about the star Kepler-351 and virtually nothing about the planet Kepler-351b. Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I stubified the article, because it is, in fact, a stub. maybe some citation and additional facts can save the article from deletion and move onto the nice article list. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 08:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In essentially all the Kepler-nnnx planets, no further information is or will be available for a decade. Their orbital radius and period, diameter and mass in the infobox are all the information we're going to get for the immediate future. Assuming it doesn't already exist, an article with a table containing that limited set of information for all the Kepler-discovered planets might be worthwhile. But separate articles makes no sense unless for some reason extra information is available. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That list would be List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-377c for a similar discussion resulting in a redirect to that list. Lithopsian (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I notice that some of the planet articles on that list actually re-direct to system articles (e.g., Kepler-33). Those articles actually can make sense, more information about the host star can become available, more planets can be discovered, and there may be discussion about interaction between the planets in the system where an article makes sense. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or turn into a redirect as discussed). I still see no notability and no reason to have the article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:33, 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 Speedy Delete. per WP:G5 (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zebronics (India)[edit]

Zebronics (India) (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 is sourced to product announcements and other promotional works. The article promotes a company that doesn't have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:G11 - this article has been deleted & salted before under Zebronics and ZEBRONICS. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - See related Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Infozeb Exemplo347 (talk) 17:02, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Perry (ice hockey)[edit]

Adam Perry (ice hockey) (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 per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league or for long enough in the AHL (needed 200 games) and no awards. Yosemiter (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 05:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 05:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Journeyman minor-leaguer with an ephemeral career in the mid-minors. Ravenswing 15:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Failed to make enough of a splash in either the OHL or AHL to satisfy notability requirements. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SustainablePembrokeshire[edit]

SustainablePembrokeshire (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 creator contested PROD. Essay-like article that has Wikipedia and primary sources as its references. Material appears promotional in some areas. On the whole, nothing in this article that couldn't be contained in the Pembrokeshire, and most of the content would be difficult to merge in a way that is acceptable within our policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 17:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or, if the original author wants, move to a sandbox to improve considerably. At present I've really no idea what "SustainablePembrokeshire" is - the article is essaylike and more a general ramble about sustainability (in the loosest sense of the word) and sustainable initiatives in the county. I can see numerous mentions online over a long period about Sustainable Pembrokeshire grants being handed out, but that's it. My preference at the moment would be to WP:BLOWITUP. Sionk (talk) 20:36, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bangalter[edit]

Thomas Bangalter (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)

One half of the notable electronic duo Daft Punk but no indication of independent notability. Merge or redirect to Daft Punk.

Also nominating:
(1) Roulé (vanity label of Thomas Bangalter)
(2) Together (French band) (another musical project of Thomas Bangalter)
(3) Irréversible (soundtrack) (an album by Thomas Bangalter)

- TheMagnificentist 15:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The ample coverage on reliable independent sources, with and without his partner to duo Daft Punk, (just search Google News) is enough to establish notability per WP:ENT. Some of the other articles might call for a valid discussion separately, but the bundle of everything together actually makes it a Strong Keep. -- IsaacSt (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac, the sources are about Daft Punk, not about Thomas Bangalter as an individual musician. Almost all Google search results show "Bangalter and his partner Guy". Also, WP:ENT does not apply here as it's for entertainers not musicians. WP:MUSICBIO would be the appropriate notability criteria. - TheMagnificentist 18:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more specific WP:MUSICBIO calls for the same: "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable". He has many non-trivial mentions with or without Guy-Manuel (e.g. [7]). Since you mention WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 10 reads: "performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a ….. notable film". Irréversible, for which he made the soundtrack, is definitely notable, so even that alone is enough. -- IsaacSt (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep most. Keep Thomas Bangalter. Significant member of multiple notable bands WP:MUSIC#6. Has coverage of solo work. Keep Irréversible (soundtrack). By notable artist, for notable film, have coverage from independent reliable sources. If you don't think it's enough for a standalone article merging to the films article is the best option. Deletion should Not occur. Keep Together (French band). Charting. Redirect/Merge Roulé to Thomas Bangalter, lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Loads of independent notability for other projects, remixes, soundtracks, and so on. KaisaL (talk) 13:58, 8 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fundación Libertad[edit]

Fundación Libertad (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 organization, fails WP:GNG. Sources do not establish notability of the organization, they are instead articles written by members of the organization itself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources and a BEFORE search were passing mentions and don't establish notability. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:01, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dyuden[edit]

Dyuden (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 no sources. In its present form, it does not demonstrate the notability of its subject. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Not sure if it can be fixed, but if it cannot, it's not enough to be kept as of right now. South Nashua (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Changing to Keep per below. South Nashua (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is a Russian Wikisource biographical entry on this person here. AllyD (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This person's name is transliterated in various ways, both in Russian (Туда́н, Тудакан, Дюдень, Дедень) and English (Dyuden, Diudan, Dyudin, Tudan, etc). However, leading a military campaign in 1293 to the detriment of major cities including Moscow, noted in the Chronicles, seems sufficient for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep inclusion in Плюшар, А. А. Энциклопедический лексикон, СПб. 1835—1841 (as pointed out by AllyD) seems to pass WP:ANYBIO. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think we have sufficient sources now, perhaps barely, to sustain the article. More are needed, and more development of the article is needed. Given he was the general of an army that conducted an extensive campaign, I think it safe to say he passed WP:MILPEOPLE, specifically "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents" and "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". The mists of time and language may make it difficult to develop this article, but there are sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Obviously notable; the article is now adequately sourced. It is only a stub, but it may be that materials do not exist to expand it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 9 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Whaley[edit]

Chris Whaley (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 wrestler. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, has been the subject of quite some independent coverage in various reliable sources, not so much for his professional wrestling career but, for example, for the film. Given the era, additional print sources may exist. Huon (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable more for the movie than for the wrestling, but notable nonetheless due to in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep through the book and movie coverage he has enough coverage for notability.  MPJ-DK  14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Kitten Surprise[edit]

Rainbow Kitten Surprise (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 band fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) WP:TOOSOON Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - still torn on deciding what to vote myself, these are the sources I could locate, excluding interviews: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and other more minor mentions. Note the university publications don't help much, although I included those above anyways. Yvarta (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 22:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:45, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garett Jones[edit]

Garett Jones (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 superficial referenciness, but the sources are not independent - the entire article is drawn from primary sources associated with the subject. This is not a surprise, since it was created by a user who has been extensively promoting (and paying others to promote) articles supporting fundamentalist libertarian ideology. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regardless of the quality of the article, and the motivation of the editor, the subject has received significant coverage. From very reliable sources. Here are three: [19],[20],[21]. Jacona (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A quick look through the "Find Sources" line reveals quite a few non-trivial sources, though without one in-depth dedicated article. After a cursory look-through of all the material elicited, I think, perhaps, a good idea to withdraw this Afd as per WP:EXISTS Tapered (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea nearly to blank the page since, at the moment, it's largely WP:PROMO. Tapered (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - the three sources JaconaFrere provides don't really satisfy WP:RS, I think. The first two are reviews of Jones' books, and not about Jones himself. I'm not sure if that means those books satisfy WP:NBOOK, but they don't imply Jones passes WP:NAUTHOR. The third source is clearly not independent, it is a blog post written by a colleague at the same university. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Jones appears to be notable. I've made the article more neutral and added a criticism section.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as WP:Too soon. Cites in high-cited field of pop-economics not yet sufficient, but that may change Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 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 no consensus. Note: AfDs should not be relisted more than twice per WP:RELIST unless absolutely necessary. Kurykh (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Cannabis Industry Association[edit]

National Cannabis Industry Association (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 believe the National Cannabis Industry Association is not notable while many companies in the cannabis industry are well known the National Cannabis Industry Association is not relevant to research on cannabis and this article seems to be one of advocacy of point of view of the organization in the work section also having an article National Cannabis Industry Association violates WP:CORP Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not a company but a trade group/lobbying organization that seems to be controversial in the American legalization debate, to say the least, so WP:CORP isn't met and this nom is null and void; lobbying organizations in and of themselves usually advocate for their cause so the con side is naturally with somebody else (you're not seeing the National Rifle Association advocating against their own policies, for instance). Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - readers should be able to read up on organizations they read about in the news.--Moxy (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinas Broadcasting Network[edit]

Filipinas Broadcasting Network (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)

Unreferenced, no sources for notability, Prod was removed by an IP without explanation or providing sources. I've been unable to find reliable sources through a Googles search. BilCat (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The stations seem to exist - at least one has Facebook - but an owner of just six stations to me doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 00:30, 4 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Allen (artist)[edit]

Jonathan Allen (artist) (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:NARTIST. A search for substantial independent sources found nothing, unlike the footballer with the same name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article needs a puffery trim, it only took me a few seconds to find this long quote in the reflist, from the Guardian. This is half off the text that talks about him in The Guardian: "And what of Tommy Angel, stage magician, illusionist and burning-bible thumping "gospel magician"? Like François's deluded soapbox man, he wants us to believe in what can't be proved. Angel is in fact the invention of artist Jonathan Allen, who has cast himself in the role of gospel evangelist, with his sparkly suit and too-perfect smile. His persuasive powers are those of the stage illusionist, with his seamless patter, his boxes of tricks, his smoke and mirrors and misdirections. When I met Allen, briefly, last week, he was negotiating the hire of a live lion for a new act, in which he wished to replicate the story of St Jerome."

I then did a proper search and turned up a significant mention in Cabinet Magazine, a small review in PhotoVideo magazine, a Google Books mention in Art21, mentions in this book on blaphemy in art, and his inclusion in this show at Mass Moca.

From the above I think he satisfies the basic WP:GNG requirement for distributed sources. The Guardian especially is convincing. Any show at Mass Moca is a significant show, given the institution, so from that I take that he also satisfies WP:ARTIST.198.58.162.200 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal Supermarket[edit]

New Deal Supermarket (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 page is either a total hoax or a non-notable one-off. While New Deal existed at one time, all the "locations" listed are former boxes of other stores (like Winn-Dixie) and have no identifiable past as NDS. There is no website, no directory listings online, no reviews online, no news article online, no modern photographs, there is literally no proof of this chain existing at all. The "departments" are generic fluff. TheListUpdater (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This chain of stores definitely existed, though there are barely any secondary sources regarding it; just a lot of one-sentence mentions: [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29].

This source states: "This small chain of grocery stores was founded by Walter Heckendorf, Sr., in 1933. At its height c. 1980, the chain had 15 stores in the Central California cities of Turlock, Modesto, Stockton, Manteca, Merced, Oakdale and Los Banos." As well, this source has some detail. How much of those two sources were copied from this 10 year-old Wikipedia article is debatable.

Much of the article is likely original research. It's odd more wasn't written about these stores. The lack of sources led to the first AfD here. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- unsourced OR, while containing a full store directory. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 8 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Blackstone[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GRIDIRON or WP:BIO. Has not played in a fully-professional league. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Also not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources of the type required to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Price of Our Silence[edit]

The Price of Our Silence (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 first novel by a non-notable author. Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NBOOK, promotional article too Spiderone 07:21, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B.J. Brown[edit]

B.J. Brown (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)

Local politician lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in a legislative election — if you cannot show and reliably source credible evidence that she already qualified for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because election. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Well, some candidates, especially the ones who run more than once (like Sara Townsend), can probably get an article. But this one doesn't seem to have enough media coverage yet to merit her own article, so I say, merge to Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2017 (assuming that article doesn't get deleted too). N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks sourcing independent of candidacy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete candidates for state legislature are just plain not notable. Only if there is some other claim to notability could they be considered. Even US congress candidates are rarely indepdently notable, but state legislature candidates even more so. Especially 6 months before the election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Candidates for state legislature are definitionally not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are many candidates and having an article on each would not be helpful. No evidence of WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-licensed drug[edit]

Off-licensed drug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are pieces of notable concepts here but I do not think there is anything here to merge elsewhere because there are not citations here.

My perspective is that the core concept expressed by this article is the idea of a physician recommending a medication in a country which is not licensing the medicine for that use. That makes this article a high-level concept for a combination of off-label use, drugs in clinical research, personalized medicine, the time when a new drug enters the global market but before it is licensed for use in all countries, and some other odd cases.

There are no sources cited and I think there is no one term which combines all these cases as this article is trying to do.

Of the cases it raises, I think it would be interesting to have a Wikipedia article on "medicine which is approved in one country, but not approved by governments in other countries" but this article by this title is not that, and only mentions the concept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This whole thing is an WP:OR collection of tidbits. That has existed since 2006. So many nooks and crannies in WP where cruft lodges and festers. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:DEL7. No WP:RSMED in over 10 years. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:50, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Suprun[edit]

Christopher Suprun (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)

Suprun is notable solely for having been a presidential elector, a role that is adequately covered at Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While he did get a bit of media coverage for his electoral college action, that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. He doesn't need a standalone biography for this; a brief mention in the concept article on faithless electors is all that's actually warranted. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My biggest problem with this article is it leaves hanging a serious BLP issue about a resume claim. This has not been settled in the ensuing 3 months because he is not a public figure and no one cares any more, so it is essentially a BLP violation to have an article on him. Enough can be said about him in the concept article without problematic BLP issues coming up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 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 (✉) 18:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World RX of South Africa[edit]

World RX of South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON. The article has only one line that duplicates the 2017 season article and a blank table. The event may be cancelled prior November. I didn't see any sense to keep article now. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event is less than 8 months away and is almost certain to go ahead. There is no issue of WP:CRYSTAL as WRX consistently updates construction to the Killarney circuit on social media. It'll be no sooner you delete the article than it re-appears again. It'll also leave a redlink on the main page. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not certain. For example: Rally China was cancelled less than one month before the start. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WRC Promoter never really made an effort to keep the public across their progress though, did they? We're going off the information we have, which isn't CRYSTAL or TOOSOON, as I have explained to you before. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the construction progress doesn't prevent unseen circumstances (extreme weather conditions, lack of funding, etc). Once again, does your article feature anything that doesn't feature the season article? For now all information we had that the World RX of South Africa will be held in November and it has been already mentioned in the season article, what the sense in the World RX of South Africa article right now? Corvus tristis (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, unforseen circumstances is crystal balling - as that is something that we don't know about; however we do know that this event is so far going to go ahead. So if that's a problem now, why was Rally China included on the 2016 WRC schedule? Why are any of these events still in tables if they might not happen? Furthermore, where was this argument when the World RX of Latvia article was created with the same sort of time difference to it's race? Clearly consistency means nothing to you. If anything, I see this as a pathetic attempt at a vendetta for my challenge to your Formula-related pages. Seeing as your interest in rallycross has only been piqued since then, I can see why this is a problem for you. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you can't answer simple question? What does contain World RX of South Africa article which doesn't contain the season article? Blank table? I have no problems with schedules, as it is the certain thing, and in the case of cancellation we adding a notification that it was cancelled. If I have noticed World RX of Latvia article in 2015, then article would have received the same AFD nomination. Also why since Latvian event was held it is so hard to you add some wording and references to the article, or at least change future tense to past? Why you are so obsessed with future events and blank tables if you can't write something different from the season article? Your actions are the clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Also if we look to the history of nominations for deletions of your articles at your talk page we will see that the quality and the necessity of your articles is not only my concern. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try a new tack, and maybe you'll understand this way. Go to the article Newcastle 500. Put that up for deletion. It has no information that is really otherwise necessary to the article or isn't already repeated in the 2017 Supercars Championship one. It's the same amount of time away as this event. I'm confident enough in the response you'll get that you should understand where I am coming from in this article. Holdenman05 (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Why it's so problematical to you to answer my direct questions or at least improve quality of the article to Newcastle 500 level? Corvus tristis (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFF is an invalid argument for you to use simply because you clearly hold a double standard. You refuse to even consider deleting an article that is in a very similar state simply because it doesn't fit your agenda. If anything, the Newcastle 500 is even less important than this one as this one is in reference to a World Championship. Holdenman05 (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you can talk about anything but not about that you were questioned. We are in the space where we should talking about nominated article not about Newcastle 500. My questions are so hard for you? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]