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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs are very poor and still fail to support the claims made. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem that notable to me, even if cites were reliable. Student7 (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: article creator also hijacked a redirect in order to create this article – it originally redirected to "protostar" as a clear primary use. Richard3120 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Quickfingers (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia isn't for someone who self-releases a mix tape and calls himself a "musician." Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:BAND. Ventric (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There's some photos, but not much else out there about this person. I doubt that the Ellis Island Medal of Honor is sufficiently exclusive to qualify him as notable ("Approximately 100 medalists are honored each year"). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. His son also opened an elevator musuem in 2017 [1]. Doesn't pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass WP:SOLDIER for his military service. No real evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche Inter Auto (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)

Bundled nomination: all three of these are divisions of Porsche Holding, with no secondary references and no sign of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche Informatik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Porsche Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: -- reads like business promotion; inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 17:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notability is unclear, and unclear how notability could be achieved here. South Nashua (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest cats (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've just dealt with an OTRS ticket (VRTS ticket # 2017121710005874) about this list. The correspondent has a cat who is over 20 years old, and provided documentary evidence of this fact in the form of the cat's vet record. This obviously isn't a published source, but it highlights the fact that there are likely many cats out there old enough to qualify for inclusion in this list - only a small number of whom will have been written about in published sources. This rather undermines the point of the list, in my opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the rationale for deletion isn't very strong. If there is a 100 year old cat that lives in a mystical forest and hasn't been written about in reliable sources, that doesn't immediately render the list of "Oldest known cats" null and void. You could argue the same thing about oldest living people, the list is still valid regardless of whether it's unequivocally complete. If the list does get too long, then the barrier to entry should be raised._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I did think about the comparison with oldest living people, Zxcvbnm, but the age of humans is much better documented, and it seems likely that the proportion of old cats whose age cannot be verified by reliable source will be much higher than for people. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reasons for deletion not justified. If the list is inaccurate, then it can be cleaned up. Ajf773 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My argument is that the list can never be accurate because the majority of cats of qualifying age won't have been written about, Ajf773. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cordless Larry: Every Wikipedia list article (of at least 100 and above entries) there is high chance it is not accurate and may even never be. That's why ((incomplete list)) and ((Dynamic list)) as well as over 10 related templates exist. Just agree this will obviously be kept as you misthought criteria for inclusion to be perfect. Wikipedia itself is not perfect and will never be either –Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not expecting every list to be perfect, Ammarpad, but this particular one seemed especially imperfect. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I agree with you. Frankly speaking even myself when I saw the title of the AfD, I already thought I will !vote delete, because I think I will meet random arrangement of cat names with unsourced exaggeration, but I saw otherwise. (Though not saying the article is perfect. It actually even needs cleanup, but not deletion). –Ammarpad (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I tried to find a reason for deletion but couldn't, sure the topic could be more notable, but I think someone must benefit from this information being here. Unjustified reason for deletion, and the article itself seems to be meeting all WP guidelines. Grapefruit17 (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• grumble grumble keep, grudgingly... prime example of listcruft, but the stated deletion rationale does not seem to disqualify the list. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Eh, well ... my first cat died two months short of 20, but even so, I don't see the problem. The article plainly states "verified" (although the non-verified entries need trimming). It's not indiscriminate, and the cutoff can always be tweaked if it gets too long. That being said, there are some multi-hundred entry list articles out there, so I'm a bit at a loss to understand how the list potentially being large is a valid deletion ground. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not arguing that the list should be deleted because it might become very large, NukeThePukes, but rather that the number of verified old cats will always be a small proportion of the actual number of old cats, if that makes sense. I think that makes the list pretty much useless, because it's a list of oldest cats...apart from all those other old cats. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You could argue, with exactly as much justification, that the various supercentenarian lists are useless because (of course) there'll have been many oldsters who either weren't noticed by the press, weren't verified or just otherwise slipped through the cracks. So stipulated, but it's entirely possible to set forth a list of the oldest verified cats, although I expect the goalposts would shift to well past 20. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, NukeThePukes, though see my comments about the comparison with humans above. I know when I hold a minority viewpoint, though, and that appears to be the case here! Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Agreed the reasoning here is a bit confounding, but I guess I'm answering the question "should it be around"? I was the reviewer who initially approved this, and it's by far not my proudest work, although I agree it could easily be seen as crufty, but it's a pretty reasonable subject, and one I would imagine people would expect Wikipedia to have. I used to keep on top of maintaining it, but it's become a bit of a unverified mess lately, which (and I know, horrible reasoning) is kinda a sign of it's value to folks. Now if we're looking to dump something, the standalone cat pages seem might need to be scratched. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I understand the list is probably not completely accurate and there are probably other cats out there that are old enough to be added to this list but there owners haven’t done so but i do not feel this list should be deleted just because of that. There are hundreds of world oldest lists on the wikipedia for all kinds of animals dogs, cats, Horses, monkeys etc and most of them are also probably not one hundred percent accurate due to the fact animals are not issued with a birth certificate when born so if this list is deleted will all the others also be deleted for the same reason. Because birth/death certificates are not issued to animals all the owners can do is provide the next best thing such as veterinary documents and records etc but never the less these animal lists make a very interesting read and provide amazing insight into just how long some animals can live for which could be handy for research and other purposes so in my opinion i think these lists should be left online for future people to view and read. renault.rich (^ᴥ^) talk 18:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.154.199 (talk) [reply]

• We can't allow owners to add their cats to the list based on veterinary records, because those aren't published sources. See WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep definite keep. I thought I will see random list of unsourced cats, exaggeration and fictitious entries but I saw otherwise. The list has definable criteria of inclusion and more importantly sourced. Plus many insightful thoughts have already been offered above by other editors. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although I think this page is stupid, this is the type of content I would expect an almanac to contain. I find no policy-based reasons to delete this. I expect this will show up at AfD again, hopefully only after somebody has found a policy-based reason to request deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. This is a crowd funded project by a company that does not pass WP:NORG. I could find no significant coverage outside blog posts/blog reviews and a few press releases. Jbh ^Talk 21:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Ventric (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for having no claim to notability, only source is its website. Ifnord (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Crow Media (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)

May fail WP:NORG despite innumerable references in notable sources mentioning maps and guides that this company has published. However, no references are provided that cover the organisation in any depth. But the page does effectively advertise their range of products. A Google search revealed the company's founder was nominated in 2016 in the Edward Stanford Travel Writing Awards but the company itself was not. (He did not win). So it seems worth testing the concensus of the community, as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, but does it meet WP:AUD with significant enough coverage to remain in mainspace? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep substantial coverage in reliable ondependent sources of their publications and founder. Notable publisher of maps and guides. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Very substantial coverage, internationally no less, given to this company and its operations.--Oakshade (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep substantial international coverage. independent publisher of note.--Fyodormd (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references are enough to show meeting WP:GNG. It is sometimes very difficult to separate company and their product in terms of media coverage because anyone must be reported or discussed in relation to the other, although few exceptions may exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:55, 22 December 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deal space (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 term, with references scraping the barrel to substantiate its use. Nothing else findable on Google search, suggesting term has a very niche and insignficant use. See WP:NOTNEO. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business people seem to understand it. Even Donald Trump has used it publicly. I suggest that we consider (a) finding business users who can participate in this discussion and (b) if no justification for keeping it emerges, consider migrating its content and subject matter to a pre-existing article.

I worry that too many deletion requests come from folks outside the venues where the terms are used, and encyclopedias DO exist to guide searchers in preliminary ways to core understandings that help move them forward in their quests for understanding.

But I also believe that the concern for 'merely niche uses' is a valid and reasonable concern. MaynardClark (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTNEO requires discussion about the term, not just use of the term, and I wasn't even about to find that much use of the term. The one article I could find [2] about "the deal space" uses that term in an entirely different way than this article does - not as permutations of a deal, but as a place one can go for discounts (Groupon, basically). Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO, according to which to keep the article we need not merely uses of the term, but INDEPTH secondary sources discussing a neologism in terms of such aspects as its meaning, origin, and use.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Atrocious WP:GNG disgrace. Ventric (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vidéotron. Content is not deleted, so it's available if anyone wants to do a merge ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vidéotron Mobile (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 to cite any sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Invalid/weak rationale. The company is notable, however, should it be a standalone article or part of the parent article? L3X1 (distænt write) 22:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Incredibly weak delete While it does fall short of flat on WP:OR, the original source is strong enough to be notable. Perhaps it could be merged somewhere? Ventric (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vidéotron, per Ventric's suggestion. Ifnord (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Morgan (footballer) (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:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Plays in non professional league. Closest thing would be as a sub in Club World Cup. NZFC^(talk) 20:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is playing in the Club World Cup not inherently notable? This is a FIFA-sanctioned official intercontinental tournament. JaumeBG (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not because it wasn't between two professional teams (Auckland City not being professional). He doesn't meet any of the points on WP:NFOOTBALL. Closest I thought is point two but he doesn't quite meet that. NZFC^(talk) 07:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 09:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNGInter&anthro (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC). Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this will prob be closed as a delete anyways, but I just wanted to point out that the main reason WP:GNG exists is not to act as a barrier to new articles being created, but rather as an insurer to make sure that all the information in the article is accurate and true. Every sentence and paragraph in the article is sourced and backed by third-party citations so the article arguably passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per Bushranger's sourcing. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Carney (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)

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I can't find any reliable source that shows he was an Ohio State representative, in which case he fails WP:BIO. The Political Graveyard lists two William Carneys, but they're both from New York.[3] (Also not to be confused with the living law professor of the same name.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to verify much of anything beyond the gravestone - [4] in Poland Riverside Cemetery Poland, Mahoning County, Ohio, USA. The original article [5], created by a Justin Carney on 3 April 2010 has survived pretty much unchanged (beyond formatting and minor deletions) and un-sourced, and looks like a copy of a local notice. As is, this fails WP:V before even assessing notability (WP:NPOL would seem to apply for the Ohio state legislature. I was unable to source details such as his 2005 award or meeting with President Bush - which I would expect to be available on-line. The Ohio state legislature seems tricky to source for the non-adept, there was however a Charles J. Carney serving in these years (as a state senator).Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  obit from which this article was probably sourced - [6].Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Each of Ohio's districts has an article, and each article lists all past representatives, e.g. Ohio's 1st congressional district#List of representatives. William J. Carney isn't in any of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article claims he was in the state lelegislature (twice), not congress.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per sources found verifying NPOL.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. This obit certainly says he was a state legislator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A seemingly non-RS obit, and NPOL creates a presumption of notability (People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included - it doesn't seem there is much of anything for this guy out there in terms of sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft space until a second source is found that provides additional verification of the subject's term in office. I believe the subject served in a position that meets WP:NPOL, but all pages need adequate sourcing. --Enos733 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This shows a voting record of Ohio legislators in 1961, and "Carney" is included amongst them, while this shows "William Carney, D-Trumbull". Also "Resentment from the battle last night carried over today la the House when Rep. William Carney (D). Trumbull County, asked how Yoder was voting on a bill so he (Carney) could vote under full sail" (Cincinatti Enquirer). There's quite a few other references to him in the Newspapers.com archive, so his being an elected member of the Ohio Legislature, and, thus, passing WP:NPOL, is, I believe, sufficiently established. @Clarityfiend, Icewhiz, and Enos733:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, based on The Bushranger's research. (I actually went to newspapers.com to do checks on this before scrolling down realizing that The Bushranger had already done it, lol) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable per reasons of the lack of significant independent sourcing and generally promotional content. FiendYT ★ 19:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. Not enough coverage. If I were to nuke the promo from the article there would be nothing left. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Forbes piece, which includes only a trivial mention of the article subject, is actually authored by an unpaid contributor (blogger?), not a paid journalist. Citobun (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a lack of sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep. No other way this is going to end. No need to keep it open longer. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Army (United States) (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 is redundant to the article United_States_Army. It also includes references to a supposedly distinct "Army of the United States", which is not a distinct entity. Farside268 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army of the United States" for the connected AfD to the Regular Army's draft force counterpart. -O.R.^Comms 14:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Strong oppose and point out this might even be a hoax nomination, as the same editor attempted to remove this component information two years ago and was quickly reverted [7]. The "Regular Army" (RA) is a service component of the U.S. Army which is the legal permanent peacetime force of the United States ground forces. The RA exists in tandem with the Army of the United States (AUS) and Army Reserve National Guard (ARNG) as one of the three statutory military components. This component is documented in millions of military service records and is listed as such on countless separation documents see here for an example. A little bit more research should have been done before making this AfD, if this is even a legitimate nomination and not a hoax. -O.R.^Comms 21:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 2 distinct things that is merged would make USA very large. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army of the United States is a parallel discussion particpants may be interested in. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Ober Ranks and it does have some separate distinction; with that said, it is the other related AfD discussion of Army of the United States, which could be merged over to this article as a sub-section. Kierzek (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is distinct from the US Army, and there is a distinct Army of the United States. There's more than enough sourced info here to speedy reject simple deletion, and merging would only add confusion to these already confusing names. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The non-reserve/volunteer/conscription component of the army is a distinct and notable topic. George Armstrong Custer was busted back from Major General (volunteers) to Captain (regular) to remain in the regular army (in which he advanced subsequently to Lt. Col).Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per comments above ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Honestly, WP:BEFORE should include a clause instructing noms to have a clue as to what they're talking about. The nom's seeming disinclination to look up the various permutations the US Army's had is indefensible. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ain't the same thing. --Lineagegeek (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: It's possible to be in the United States Army without being in the Regular Army; for example all those guardsmen and reservists. I was USAR on active duty for ten years.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:15, 19 December 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. There's agreement that this exists as a legal entity. What's less clear is whether sufficient sources exist to establish notability independent of the parent organization (i.e. United States Army). Normally, I'd relist something when there's no consensus after a full week, but in this case, the number of people involved in the discussion, and the depth of analysis, leads me to believe we've gone about as far as we can go here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Army of the United States (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 is based on a false belief that the "Army of the United States" and the "United States Army" are legally separate entities. Farside268 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article does appear to contradict United States Army to the extent that the latter article describes the United States Army as having continually been in operation since the time of the American Revolutionary War, and throughout all the World Wars, up to the present day. I doubt that there is any point at which the "United States Army" would not be recognized as the same entity prescribed in the United States Constitution. However, it is plausible that there is a historical distinction between the "Army of the United States" as constituted at the time of the Second World War and other iterations of the same military force, such as the Union Army. To the extent that sources can be found supporting any such distinction, this article should be moved to something like Army of the United States (1941–1974), so that the title can redirect to the clear primary topic, which is United States Army. bd2412 T 20:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: The "Army of the United States" (AUS) is a service component of the U.S. Army which is the legal conscription force of the United States ground forces. The AUS was used during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. The component is documented in millions of military service records and is listed as such on countless separation documents see here for an example. A little bit more research should have been done before making this AfD, if this is even a legitimate nomination and not a hoax (the same editor attempted to remove component information two years ago as well and was quickly reverted) [8][9]. A similar nomination was made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular Army (United States) and the editor further made statements that the conscript force during World War I was also not a real entity [10]. These nominations should be speedily closed as there is a possibility that this was a hoax or, at the very least, an AfD made by someone unfamiliar with the proper procedure since these are widely cited and well documented service components of the United States Army. -O.R.^Comms 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular Army (United States) is a parallel discussion particpants may be interested in. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep This is a notable topic. It is notable in its own right, and should not be a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The article does not cite any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and I have been unable to find any myself, although Google apparently has a hard time distinguishing between this and United States Army. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Army of the United States listed in Army regulations [11] as well as codified legal statue [12]. Searching "Army of the United States" and/or "AUS" also provides several Internet sources. What I find even more interesting is that the red link account making this "delete" vote has apparently bumped into the nominator before [13]. -O.R.^Comms 04:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources is independent of the subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Code, Title 10 and 32 and completely independent from the Army. The Army does not write its own legal statues. -O.R.^Comms 15:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - presently - the article is entirely sourced to dictionary.com and 3 primary sources - 10 U.S.C. § 3001, Army Regulation 10-87, and Conscription Order #1. If this is indeed distinct from the United States Army - I would expect some better sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) And looking at these - [14] [15] - I'm not sure I'm convinced this is distinct from United States Army. In the 1920 act this seemed to refer to the entire army (including national guard and reserves). In WWII - this seems to mainly refer to the non-regular component of the us army (though it is unclear if this is assumed (i.e. if AUS - not RA, or exclusive).Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to United States Army, leaving redirect. The article is not sufficiently sourced, nor are sources readily available (see collapsed discussion above). The term seems to be used for different purposes - as a term in the constitution for the US Army, and by the US Army during wartime (definitely in WWII, maybe in Korea and Vietnam) for the expanded war-time component of the army (i.e. the non-regular army).Icewhiz (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally got the confusion here. The term "Army of the United States" has been used to both describe the Army as a whole as well as the conscription-draft service component. The light bulb has gone off. I rewrote the intro to the Army of the United States article and I hope this clears it up. I would actually be perfectly fine with moving the article to "Army of the United States (component)" or something similar to make it clear this usage is separate from the nomenclature of Army and Armies of the United States which has been in use since the 1800s. If there are any issues with the article re-write we can discuss at the article talk page. Thanks for the alternate point of view, I think this was a big point of confusion on both sides of the issue. -O.R.^Comms 18:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, but I would still prefer the article not to have the disambiguation, as a reader looking for it will find it harder to locate. Rather, the article should make it clear what it is about, and we should never, ever use "Army of the United States" incorrectly to mean "United States Army" on Wikipedia. I add here that not everyone was drafted into the AUS. A Regular Army officer like William F. Heavey would hold (different) rank both in their own corps and the AUS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn't get into this up above in the sources debate, but its very hard to debate this wasn't a real component, when its listed in the military records of every single major figure from the Second World War. AUS ranks were granted to all of the five star officers, including Eisenhower as well as Curtis Lemay and countless others. Westmoreland also held AUS rank in Korea and, as you pointed out, it was common for officers to hold both different AUS and RA ranks. There was another category, called "AUS Retired", but not being an Army person I'm not too familiar with it. -O.R.^Comms 14:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It passes WP:V. However this internal nomenclature (and defunct I might add) of the US army is scantily covered outside of internal army regulations. You need at least a smattering of reliable subjects treating this as a subject. The best I was able to find was 1-2 paragraph glossary mentions - [23] [24] - and some of what is in the article is substantially worse. Internal army nomenclature (for a temporary rank/position during wartime, but no real organization or separateness from the army beyond being an instrument for a temporary assignment (at a potentially much greater rank) - AFAIK there was no "Army of the United States" organizational structure or command chain - it was all 1 army with essentially temporary billets) without external coverage - belongs in the army article, not as a standalone.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Added AFAIK to qualify that this is my impression of this, not a bulletproof stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best thing to do, after the AfD is closed, would be to start up a merge discussion on the article talk page. I was never in the Army (was Navy where we didn't have anything like this) so other Wikipedia editors who actually held AUS ranks can give their opinions. It would also be interesting to research if the AUS actually had some specific offices associated with it's management, much like the Guard and USAR does today. This component hasn't been around for 35+ years, so it would require some digging. -O.R.^Comms 15:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above arguments. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and direct to United States Army per above discussion. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Elsamni (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 was speedy deleted, but the WP:A7 was overturned at review. As part of the review process, I'm bringing this to AfD as a purely aministrative action; I offer no opinion on the merits of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails the notability guidelines for academics. There are also a lot of issues of violation of general policies that were brought up at the deletion review that are good grounds to delete the article. This was clearly a bad application of speedy A7 guidelines, but deleting the article is a clearly good call.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam that fails notability created by a now-blocked sock. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Having written one chapter of a EU document is not at all remarkable or grounds for notability. His Masters thesis (described in the article as "his research" - sorry, but no) has been quoted in a few places. Good for him, but it does not make him meet WP:NPROF. --bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The refs don't support notability. Procedure is procedure - needed to be deleted at AFD not speedy. Szzuk (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG, and while doing it via AFD is more time-consuming, it would give us a strong WP:G4 in case it's re-created again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. The other questions don't matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hurrygane (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Author should read WP:YOURSELF and WP:PROUD. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Article should also be WP:SALTed due to author's repeated recreation of it and block evasion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. SNOW. South Nashua (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - Spam, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 21 December 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. NOTNEWS carries the day here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Birmingham road collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT - appears to be routine road collision with nothing special or indication for WP:LASTING for notability. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly one of the reasons WP:NOTNEWS was organized. Road collisions, even with fatalities, are a routine occurrence. What matters is historical significance and pertinence, all of which are explained further in the notability criteria for events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst it seems inevitable that this will be deleted under NOTNEWS, I'm unimpressed by AfDing any article just an hour after creation. If it isn't CSDable, there's no timescale that requires invoking the effort of an AfD that quickly. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability can't be fixed so I don't see a reason to wait around...the only reason not to would be WP:RAPID. In this case I reckon if it ever has a chance of becoming notable, it'd take months to determine as that's how long significant things - like regulatory changes etc take to happen. Perhaps I should've waited a few days though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Or the editor who created the article could have waited. WP:RAPID works both ways.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I am tempted to cite RAPID for inclusion. It might be notable and lasting, we do not know yet all of the circumstances. But I will WAIT a week.Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As noted above, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this is clearly WP:ROUTINE. If there's anything that emerges in the future that makes this not routine, recreating this page would be easy. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. In the unlikely event this routine event becomes something that meets notability criteria, the (two-sentence) article can always be brought back. With routine events, the order is supposed to be wait to see if the event is notable, then create the article. Not the other way around. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia should be a website people can rely on, the ocasional stub (see WP:STUB) is fine, but having a two sentence "article" or any other "article" of this length will reflect poorly on Wikipedia and doesn't even have a reason to be on the cite. this article in particular is not meeting WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that it's two sentences to me is enough reason to delete it. Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very one off event and non notable. I think there's speedy tag for this kindof news piece or there should be one. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage of unorganised events – for example, shooting incidents – may not necessarily qualify on A7; deletion discussions should be preferred in such cases. is a note on A7. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - This crash is still being covered in the last 24 hrs, e.g. - Shocking video shows supercars racing up to 145mph near site of Birmingham taxi crash, Sun, Birmingham crash victim Kasar Jehangir jailed over police chase, BBC, Final two victims of 'harrowing' multi-vehicle car crash in Birmingham named, Sky News, Birmingham crash: Man killed in smash that left six dead was drug dealer jailed over 120mph police chase, Telegraph. Seems some involved had a questionable background and that the site of the crash is used as an informal racing track.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, a lot of events get some coverage for a few days to a week, as various news comes out. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence WP:RAPID. I looking at this earlier in order to see if I should case a delete !vote (it is a crash after all) - but it seem that the coverage still has legs - and if indeed this was a case of use of the road for illegal racing (e.g. see this - Audi involved in crash which killed six ‘may have been racing’ witness claims) - it might have quite a bit of more legs. I'm deferring my !vote - but this is really not as clear as the pileup (pun intended) of delete votes here conveys.Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per above, or until anything significant and notable comes out of this. Nightfury 08:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per above, though WP:NOTNEWS but receiving coverage for last few hours. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I Come In Madam? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by a CU confirmed sock for undeclared payments in violation of the terms of use. Excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. Notability isn't even a consideration that needs to be taken into account. It has no right to be on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- G5/G11 eligible; promotional spam created by a confirmed sock farm. Such content is specifically excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there have been over 100 edits to this page since the original page creator was blocked; I don't think this should be deleted solely for being fruit of the poisonous tree. I do see some coverage of this show; apart from the Hotstar site (which I believe is reliable for cast info and the like), a Google search gives [25] and [26]. I believe that it meets the (generally low) guidelines for a TV show to meet WP:TVSHOW. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is significant off-wiki evidence in this case that would urge deletion in order to deal with the UPE problem. I'd typically agree with you on this, because the show in this case has been cancelled, but in this particular case there are very strong reasons to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are follow-up socks beyond the initial creator significant enough to justify G5, that's fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable television series. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: -- "Created by a CU confirmed sock" (per TonyBallioni) is all we need to know. Quis separabit? 17:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sorry, but I'm with Power~enwiki: I'm failing to see the "very strong reasons" to delete other than that it was created by a sock, and I've never thought that being created by a sock is a valid deletion ground absent any others. We're talking a network show with hundreds of eps, and yes, notability should be taken into account. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was created in violation of the terms of use. The creator literally had no legal right to hit the save button. It's not just socking, and the additional reasons for deletion beyond that can't be linked to because of our privacy policy. Maintaining this article as an article is actively harmful to Wikipedia even more so than most paid editing articles, and notability should not even be considered because of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No comment on notability, for me this is a simple cast of WP:TNT. The only thing worse than socks is paid socks. Ifnord (talk) 15:09, 24 December 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. ansh666 06:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rua (band) (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)

Ineligible for PROD due to previous PROD. I can't find enough sources to show that this band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG.

I checked Google, GBooks, GNews, JSTOR, Highbeam, and Newspapers.com and failed to find any in-depth sources covering them. Although there is some local coverage from this year mentioning their reunion, there is nothing indicating a wider interest as required by WP:N. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Definitely non notable. As a NZer I have never heard of them ever. Ajf773 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That not a criteria for notability. There are objective criteria, such as WP:MUSIC. Ifnord (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I will recuse myself from this discussion, having worked with them. dramatic (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Quickfingers (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:BAND. Partly the problem is that their heyday was early/pre-internet era, so a lot of coverage is in print newspaper articles not indexed on Google. Partly it's a matter of searching properly. (Just searching on "rua" will get you a lot of chaff because "rua" is Maori for "two.") eg:

– This newspaper article from May 2017 has several sentences about Rua in the context of former members getting together again in a band "Toru" (Maori for "three"): The “Crossing Borders” tour reignites a 25-year musical association between Denny Stanway, James Wilkinson and Davy Stuart from Rua, the much-lauded Christchurch Celtic band formed by Stanway’s husband, the late Jimmy Young. / Media liaison Diana Moir said it seemed a logical progression from Rua days, when the band built up a significant fanbase performing at major music festivals throughout the world, recording multiple albums and being the recipients of two New Zealand Music Awards, and touring several times with Arts On Tour New Zealand. / Rua called it a day several years ago, but now...

– This newspaper article from June 2017 discussing the same tour.

– This 1991 NZ Herald item probably mentions their winning of "Best Folk Album" at the NZ Music Industry Awards.

– This 1996 NZ Herald item probably also mentions them at the NZ Music Awards.

— Gpc62 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Which criteria does it meet WP:BAND? Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The only band to have twice won Best Folk Album at the New Zealand Music Awards. The first win, in 1990 (for 1989), was for The Commonwealth Suite which the band's founder was specially commissioned to write in celebration of New Zealand's 150th Anniversary. Some sources for these items: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. The wiki article is sadly neglected but can easily be improved with these links plus other careful searching. As mentioned above, a difficult Google search because the short word "rua" is not sufficient, and so other keywords need to be added (but not in the same quotation marks, and "band" isn't always the best keyword to add). The founder's name, Jimmy Young, might be a good keyword to add. SunChaser (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some additional informational links (some are about the reunion and tour): [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. SunChaser (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes WP:MUSIC and, with the references cited by SunChaser, it appears to pass WP:GNG as well. Ifnord (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Info could be found here [50],[51],[52]and [53].CASSIOPEIA (talk) 15:28, 25 December 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a notable holiday. One of many promotional marketing days for the Christmas shopping season; the references are largely first-party or press releases. Using references such as [54] would possibly be citogenesis. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Freight transport, which has no mention of this, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- promotionalism-only, apparently. I don't see a reason to merge to Freight transport, that seems off-topic for the suggested target. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a real online holiday shopping event that has been going on for a decade. How does it differ from Black Friday or Cyber Monday, which are also derived for promotional purposes. Categories E-commerce, Online retailers,Movable December observances seem relevant, as would shopping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focorunner (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Focorunner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: The consideration to remove this page seems arbitrary given the existence of pages for other retail promotional events including Green Monday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Monday) and Super Saturday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Saturday). Both of these events are categorized as movable monthly observances and are not currently tagged for deletion. I agree Freight transport is off-topic for this entry and should not be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinoli15 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Kinoli15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep While I may have a personal opinion about whether something like this belongs in an encyclopedia, I cannot deny that there is an abundance of coverage of the article topic in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My rationale is very similar to Nwlaw63. It could use some trimming of promotional content, however. —cnzx 05:37, 21 December 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. ansh666 06:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rody Mirri (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 can't find any reliable sources that would indicate this person is notable. The Italian Wikipedia article was deleted in 2008 as a vanity page and was speedied again in 2010. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per our friends at the Italian Wikipedia. Ifnord (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- solely a vanity page on a nn person and per it.wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Savage (composer) (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 really, really hate to do this, but I don't think he passes WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. I have checked Google, GBooks, Gnews, JSTOR, and Highbeam and the best I can find is hisNew York Public Library archive listing. There is a blog post, and a trivial mention here but nothing else of depth.

On top of those checks, I spent twenty minutes picking through Newspapers.com looking for any mention of a Robert Savage and found no articles mentioning him from 1950-2017.

In the absence of any other reliable sources, I'm not sure that simply being archived at the NYPL is enough to presume notability. I am happy to withdraw if the consensus is that it would grant a presumption of notability (or obviously if sources are found). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons the nominator mentions, and because its persistent orphan status edges it into a memorial. It seems like his visibility (and presence at NYPL) is tied up mainly with his promise as an artist, the nature of his life being cut short by AIDS, and the tremendous work that was done to document lives that were lost to the disease. But these do not seem to be the same thing as notability in the context of Wikipedia. (And don't feel bad.) KR26740 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NOTABLE in any way. --Smerus (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NYLON (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)

Nominated for speedy deletion, but not an WP:A1 candidate. See Talk:NYLON for the (declined) A1 nominator's deletion rationale. To my mind, this does appear to be a neologism that hasn't caught on. Shirt58 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even neologisms can make it if they gain usage. Although rename to NyLon, maybe even with a suitable disambig. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Additional reliable secondary sources about the term or concept ("not just sources that use the term", per WP:NOTNEO) are straightforward to find, such as news providers [55], [56] and books [57], [58]. The article is a stub but is not currently solely about the neologism and could be expanded to say more about the concept, just as the articles are about more than the neologism. (The neologism seems reasonable as a short title rather than, say, 'The New York–London financial and cultural nexus', and although I'd prefer 'NyLon' or 'NYLon' to 'NYLON', the article title is a separate matter.) Qwfp (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is easy to find further coverage of the concept such as Global City Network. It is not our policy to delete articles because they are short – see WP:STUB, WP:IMPERFECT, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hurrygane (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But disambiguate to NyLon (term) or NyLon (concept). Current title is too confusing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:51, 22 December 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. Although the points made for delete are strong, to be consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake will close this as no consensus. There are open discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#An issue with one sentence and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Please clarify confusing notability issue for AfD purposes directly related to this discussion. I strongly suggest an RfC on this matter for wider visibility as the outcome will affect a wide range of pages. J04n(talk page) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. All articles listed below relies on routine statistical coverage in CricketArchive and have insufficient references (most of them contain only one reference) to support the biography and all are missing basic biographical details, such as first name or year of birth. A similar mass nomination is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake. No offence to creator of these bios. Saqib (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burhanuddin (Sukkur cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

P. Kadam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

P. Shadwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VG Jadhav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S. K. Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

M. Mukherjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ziauddin (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TN Deo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C. Lodtag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S. Kothane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SN Kunzru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pahlajani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Majethia (Saurashtra cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SK Bahry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S. N. Sanyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

RM Alwis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SR Kale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DS Bhatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MSM Shiyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

N. Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A. Sarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

P. Rashid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S. Rehman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

R. Puri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

G. Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

L. Doran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ajantha (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

M. Asthana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NPR Vittal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HA Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

M. Sanjeewa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GN Kunjru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dharmasdrasinhji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

R. Tripathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

M. Jayasekera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

K. Bhatnagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Krishnamurthi (Northern Punjab cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A. Haque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SS Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

KUK Herath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sen (Assam cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

V. J. Barai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S. Dotiwala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

N. Thaliry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VR Ghetge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Comment - is it just me or am I starting to feel victimized for absolutely no reason? I find it absolutely disgusting that people are trying to destroy the cricket Wikiproject for some silly rule they've plucked out of the air. Simply because cricketers are not from an English speaking country they are not acceptable for Wikipedia. This goes against everything WP stands for and is a disgusting blot on our project. Bobo. 09:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - all first-class cricketers. Why is our project being destroyed? If there had been a rule all along that only first-class players from English-speaking countries were allowed, I would have stuck to this all along. As for "only contain one reference", anyone with half a brain knows from where to add a second. "Does not contain year of birth" is not a deletion criterion. Bobo. 09:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all- These have all the same problems as the other non-notable cricket players' articles. Sourced to only raw statistical entries inflated into prose, sourcing so minimal it's not even possible to determine such basic biographical information as a first name or DOB. Many don't even have a first initial. Many of these people are likely to still be alive, so this kind of thing is irresponsible from a BLP standpoint- especially as the single source has been shown to be vague about unambiguously identifying these obscure cricketers. These articles fail WP:V and, since the effective deprecation of WP:CRIN, they also fail our notability requirements. If, later, some suitable sourcing should arise for some of these players the articles can be recreated. Since making them in the first place was a zero-effort undertaking, I don't suppose that will be too onerous. Reyk _YO! 10:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you have been a member of this site for 13 years attempting to improve it to better the aims of the encyclopedia only to find your efforts being destroyed, then, with all due respect, you can call this a "zero-effort undertaking". Surely you can see how demoralizing this is for me. Bobo. 10:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well for 13 years you and your colleges have ignored the purposes of the encyclopedia and the meaning of the general notability guidelines. Articles need to be built on 3rd-party reliable source coverage. If the cricket guidelines were reasonable, you could produce such coverage on every person who fit its insanely overly broad limits. You have not even tried to do so, just hand waved and said we should accept some rule that was drawn up in total disregard of where such coverage was likely to occur. Also, since English is one of the official languages of India, claiming this is some sort of attack on cricketers from "non-English-speaking countries" is unjustifiable. This is an attempt to make all Wikipedia articles follow the rules of verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ONLY those which are BLP and fail WP:Verify. The remainder should be retained, certainly for now, so that notability can be assessed in due course. Verification as a fundamental policy must take precedence over a guideline. User:Reyk, you mention no initials for some players but names like Burhan-ud-din, Dharmasdrasinhji and Krishnamurthi are complete. They do not have first names or initials. If you look at famous players like Ranjitsinhji and Duleepsinhji you will understand. Burhan-ud-din should properly be spelt with hyphens as I have shown and Pakistan had a good batsman called Alim-ud-din in the early days. Please don't get hung up on sub-continental names. What matters is verification and, from that, notability. Waj (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware that some people have only one name. Others state "full name and initials unknown" suggesting, as I said, that a lot of these articles don't even allow for the person's full name to be determined. What is the objection to that, exactly? Reyk _YO! 14:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said above that "Many don't even have a first initial" as if that is an issue. The three I highlighted will not have other names so they are not missing initials. That is not the case with a name like Sen, though, and his first name(s) is/are certainly missing.

In fact, the complaints about inaccuracy on CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo are justified in regard to Alim-ud-Din. They have rendered his name incorrectly (no hyphens) although Wisden has done it correctly. It must be said that Wisden is definitely the more respected source. Perhaps it is right to get hung up on the names sometimes? Oh, dear. Waj (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all If people have not even bothered to record the full name of an individual, and if the coverage is only in statistical databases, there is a total and complete faiure of the general notability guidelines. The fact that these may pass the current interpretation of the notability guidelines for cricket players shows that these guidelines are flawed, fail in the purposes intended for area specific guidelines, and need to be heavily revised or entirely scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all These articles do not meet the high bar of GNG. People defending these articles need to understand that this is Wikipedia, not "Crickipedia", and passing the general notability guideline takes precedence over passing cricket notability guideline. Dee03 16:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We assume that everyone born in the last 110-years is alive, unless positive proof of death is provided. Thus Sen (Assam cricketer), who played in a single game in the early 1950s, clearly falls under BLP rules, which are not at all met by one listing in a statistical database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, according to WP:BDP in the biography of living persons policy, it is 115 years presumed alive unless death verified, so anyone born since the end of 1902. Waj (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all which are sourced only to CricketArchive, which may not even be a reliable source and certainly doesn't satisfy WP:BLP. Procedural keep of all others, as they warrant their own discussions if they have more sourcing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - some of these may very well have been top class cricketers in their day, but the only source in all the article requires a subscription and the names are so vague that researching these individuals is difficult. Unless any citation that proves notability comes up, I'm afraid these articles fail WP:GNG by a wide margin. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do satisfy WP:NCRIC. The issue here is not notability but verifiability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right at the end of NCRIC it says:

"Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding and these must be quoted if difficulty arises in an AfD discussion."

That used, once upon a time, to be a lot more prominent in the notability criteria. These days no one ever seems to get that far. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: Actually, you quoted WP:CRIN, which is neither a guideline nor a policy. It is simply some supplemental material developed by a WikiProject which has no actual standing. WP:NCRIC is a guideline, which is quite different. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect all There are no biographical references about any of these people; they are merely sourced to a name appearing on a scorecard. They don't pass the Pokémon test. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lugnuts' redirect proposal is a fine alternative to deletion, and I see no reason to oppose it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD should remain open for 14 days as I and other WP:CRIC members need time to find the sources. Will vote in the end. But clearly AfD is not place to scrap WP:CRIN (i.e. they should start RfC). Störm (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: I think most of the nominated bios have presence in ESPN database, but still that will count as statistical coverage. --Saqib (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true. I'm busy till Friday so will see this later whether it is worth to keep them or should be merged into list e.g. List of Indian cricketers. Störm (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect the following into their main lists. Most of the Indian cricket teams have their own standalone articles for players. In an effort to preserve the article history, and the possiblity of future expansion, these can go to their parent article:

P. Kadam - List of Gujarat cricketers

P. Shadwell - List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers

VG Jadhav - List of Maharashtra cricketers

S. K. Desai - List of Gujarat cricketers

TN Deo - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

S. Kothane - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

SN Kunzru - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

Pahlajani - List of Assam cricketers

Majethia (Saurashtra cricketer) - List of Saurashtra cricketers

SK Bahry - List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers

SR Kale - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

N. Singh (cricketer) - List of Assam cricketers

A. Sarma - List of Assam cricketers

P. Rashid - List of Assam cricketers

S. Rehman - List of Assam cricketers

R. Puri - List of Assam cricketers

L. Doran - List of Assam cricketers

M. Asthana - List of Southern Punjab cricketers

NPR Vittal - List of Andhra cricketers

HA Khan - List of Gujarat cricketers

GN Kunjru - List of Assam cricketers

Dharmasdrasinhji - List of Saurashtra cricketers

R. Tripathi - List of Assam cricketers

K. Bhatnagar - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

V. J. Barai - List of Saurashtra cricketers

S. Dotiwala - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

VR Ghetge - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lugnuts' above proposal is reasonable. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. As an example, I have made an addition to Kunzru's entry in List_of_Madhya_Pradesh_cricketers#K to show what can be done with a single-appearance player. Is that okay? Waj (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: Strange though it may seem to some, articles on cricket players aren't exempt from the GNG or WP:BLP, and have to meet those standards all the same. I'm singularly unimpressed by the "OMG you vandals are destroying the cricket project!!!!" hyperbole. The way to save these articles isn't in screeching "How dare you?" but in providing adequate sourcing. One would think that thirteen years is quite enough time to allow for doing so. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Notability,

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Whether or not these articles meet GNG is irrelevant, as they meet the SSG, as specified by our overarching notability guideline. Harrias ^talk 12:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there was a debate surrounding this issue and consensus was clear that GNG overrules any SSG, not the other way around. Reyk _YO! 14:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just quoting Wikipedia:Notability, which specifically says either is a presumption of notability. Harrias ^talk 15:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Name formats. I was puzzled by the variety of naming formats in the list and found MOS:INITIALS which says "an initial is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g., J. R. R. Tolkien)". It is evident, then, that there is an additional problem and that many of these, like VR Ghetge, will need to be renamed if kept to V. R. Ghetge, etc. So, too, must Burhanuddin and Ziauddin to Burhan-ud-Din and Zia-ud-Din as they are formatted incorrectly and should be hyphenated. I like the initials standard. It should be easy to follow and it is disappointing that people cannot be bothered to comply with a standard. Regards, Waj (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong appeal for speedy keep yet again - There are several articles in English Wikipedia that doesn't cite any sources but these articles have References from Cricinfo, CricketArchive, CricHQ, PCB etc. One of the goals of WikiProject Cricket is to write all the cricket related biographies who have played in First-class cricket, List A cricket and T20 cricket. Just assume, a footballer playing for a club team is considered to be notable under WikiProject Football. I think just for the sake of a missing given name it could have been nominated for an AfD. Cricinfo is a reliable database similar to Soccerway, which is a football database used as a primary source in creating football biographies. Like Soccerway, people should think websites like Cricinfo and CricketArchive are also reliable cricket databases when referring or extracting information. Abishe (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is substantial Keep I like it and other articles argument. And none is valid reason for keeping article. The fact that some articles are not sourced is never, and will never be reason to keep another bare minimum permanent stub. There is no significant coverage of these players and therefore no biography should exist for them–Ammarpad (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Development. New initiatives are taking place at WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. I believe a hold should be placed on these discussions where notability is the issue but not where WP:V is in question. Regards, Waj (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a formal RFC is proposed (either to change WP:NCRIC/WP:CRIN, or to change the relation between the WP:GNG and sports-specific SNGs), I agree this should be a procedural close with no action (i.e. keep). The discussion so far isn't enough for me to change from my opinion that stand-alone articles aren't reasonable here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I have misunderstood but I thought the issue raised at Nsports talk was an RFC. Okay. Regards, Waj (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of GNG is the number one priority for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Lugnuts. For one thing, the lack of scrutiny caused by mass nomination is bad process. For another, it will help the comprehensive coverage an encyclopedia demands. And the clincher is that it's much easier for someone with additional sources to go back in the history and expand them if they haven't been deleted. It's plain that they're all notable, just not fulfilling our verifiability criteria. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - whatever is to be done to this, what we need to be doing first and foremost is making complete lists of first-class players by team. Not willy-nilly here and there based on articles which people have randomly decided they don't like. Bobo. 17:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All- I think its very hard to make a claim of notability when we don't even know the person's full name.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not an argument based on policy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rule per se, but its common sense. First, not knowing the full names makes WP:V a problem, but it also makes a statement that whatever few sources do exist did not consider the person important enough to remember his full name.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This is a mess, you can't just nominate 20 articles in one AfD. The guidelines of WP:NCRIC exist for a reason, and these articles all meet the notability guidelines. If you don't like the guidelines, then the correct course of action is to start an RfC about it, not start a mass AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have added inline citations and other references for some of these articles and will do others in coming days. User:Rusf10 reverted the edit to the CE Holkar article that included extra information; I have now reinstated it. This mass AfD is, as User:Joseph2302 says, a mess as the cricketers involved come from at least three countries, some have made several first-class appearances (not just single-appearance people) and in at least one case (M. Jayasekera) a full name and birthdate/birthplace are now known. Johnlp (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was reverted is because of the sentence "His full details are not yet known". How commentary like this belongs in the article is beyond me.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take that sentence out if it offends. But you don't need to undo the other improvements. Johnlp (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep  As per the nomination, "most [articles nominationed] contain one reference".  So some have more than one source.  This is not a set of articles with common properties.  The attempt to nominate them all at once is done for the purpose of presenting an agenda.  Editors have noticed that the WP:ATD was not considered.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:feminist has below identified the related Wikilink WP:TRAINWRECK.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - to claim there was any form of "consensus" in the conversation here is downright deceptive and to be honest, the equivalent of pushing an agenda. This was a horrid, messy close and should not have been made this way. I still believe there was no form of consensus here and would like someone to convince me there is any present. If, as is stated above, we are currently in a conversation based on verifiability and not notability, I believe this conversation needs to take place elsewhere before coming to AfD. Bobo. 04:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single statistical database reference is insufficient for the biography of a living person. Countless efforts to reconcile GNG with NCRIC have failed with stubborn resistance to any reasonable compromise. Rhadow (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support Störm's recommendation below. Rhadow (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These players are better suited for a list article. Further, the WP:NCRIC mentions the player should have appeared in 'highest international or domestic level', whereas many of these players have played in a 'first class match', without mentioning the name of the domestic league. MT Train^Discuss 14:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all that rely only on statistics. The mere existence of a statistic doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. We need to be able to say more convert that statistic into prose ("he played in .. and scored ..."). --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This !vote hasn't identified a violation of WP:Deletion policy if a violation of WP:DEL8 is assumed, hasn't identified a violation of WP:N if a violation of GNG is assumed, and hasn't provided evidence of absence for GNG violations.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The mere existence of a statistic doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Do you want me to substitute GNG with notability? I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. --regentspark (comment) 17:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement, "The mere existence of a statistic doesn't satisfy X" is a conclusion to be drawn when X = GNG, but not when X = "WP:N" or X = "Wikipedia notability".  Nor is the statement evidence of an absence of GNG sources.  Posters are advised in the Group Notice when posting here to consider alternatives to deletion, and if alternatives were suggested and the poster wants to !vote delete, to "elaborate why".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to say this more explicitly though that's really not necessary because it is implicit in my statement that other sources don't exist or have not been found. A source that merely contains a statistic relating to an individual does not indicate whether that individual was notable or not. After a diligent, if google, search, no other sources could be found on the individual in question. This implies that the individual in question is likely not notable enough for an article on that individual to be included on Wikipedia. Therefore, since the individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, the article fails WP:GNG. --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; what we have here is not a bundle of articles but rather a bundle of interpreted statistics. BLPs require actual sources and needs to satisfy GNG. A sports guideline does not supercede these blatant violations and, as I have said before, if anyone can find an in-depth secondary source that no one else could, I will happily change my !vote.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, at least until discussions at WT:NSPORTS and WT:CRIC have concluded. Like it or not, they pass WP:NCRIC and they have, or can have by easy amendment, inline references. Discussion about whether WP:NCRIC is fit for purpose should take place elsewhere and the implications for the whole range of team sports such as soccer, baseball and American football should also be taken into consideration: there are articles that reference statistical databases covering many sports, and to single out cricket articles is potentially unjust, but also potentially of concern to a much wider group of editors who contribute to other parts of WP. In addition, this is a very mixed bag of articles touching on a varied set of WP communities, and a blanket nomination is just the wrong way to do anything with them: discussion here has been entirely about these articles as if they were "owned" by the cricket project, when there are other WP projects (such as WP:Sri Lanka, WP:Pakistan and WP:India) for whom some of the articles are relevant, and some not at all. Bundling disparate articles together in this way does not help these projects and leaves the English language WP open to possible charges of systemic bias. Johnlp (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all -- these are not BIO articles. Way insufficient sources for stand-alone entries. Samples:

• "Majethia (full name and details unknown)... "
• "MSM Shiyam (full name and birthdate unknown)... " Etc.

Delete for lack of significant coverage that discusses each subject directly and in detail. Wikipedia does not aim to create an exhaustive directory of all athletes who played in a given game. In the case here, WP:SIGCOV is sorely lacking, to the point that the full names of the subjects are not known. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect All per User:Lugnuts. If WP:NCRIC allows articles on potentially living people to exist without anything in the way of substantial sources to support them, then it is a guideline that needs revising. There has been a widespread consensus that the WP:GNG trumps any narrow SNG in cases like these. A redirect is a good compromise as some of them may be valid search terms. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect Sri Lankan cricketers to List of Sri Lankan cricketers, Indian cricketers to List of Indian cricketers. I'm trying to build-up on Lugnuts idea that when we fail to find any significant coverage then we should redirect to the list until it becomes ready for stand-alone article. But we really lack by-team lists and situation is no one is ready to write all those missing lists for hundreds of team and no one will in near future. So, result will be that we will continue to loose articles. I have started a dynamic list List of Sri Lankan cricketers with general name which will provide overall navigation for Sri Lankan cricketers and also we can keep links blue for by team list. There were solutions before e.g. List of lesser known Sri Lankan cricketers, Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players but they eventually got deleted. I'm suggesting this kind of dynamic list as a compromise, because otherwise these bundles will continue to come. It is easy for us to create these lists for 12 test playing nations and isn't violating WP rules. This list need major improvements which anyone can do or suggest. Störm (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankiveil: @TheGracefulSlick: @Rhadow: @Dweller: @Reyk: @Dee03: @Saqib: What they say about the suggestion. Störm (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, was one of the solutions I've recommended before. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I._Kudigame and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive294#WP:CRIN_wars, and provided a suggestion of how such a thing might look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_lesser-known_Sri_Lankan_cricketers. For this I was abused and heckled by the usual suspects. And from outside the cricket wikiproject the general suggestion was that less is more, so I kind of stepped back from that idea. Reyk _YO! 09:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional thought opposing redirect Don't redirect any. Redirect is superficially deletion with additional ability to easily revert them to article. Once Article is deemed to be redirected that means it is not notable per se, and what is the essence of redirecting non notable person to list article where no information about him exist?. If anybody feels redirect is warranted they can easily be created with one revision after this AfD. But keeping these stub of biographies will not do any anything except to serve as behind route to overturn AfD decision by turning them to articles with another additional 1 or 2 lingering citation from stats websites. Both those who !voted delete and redirect are of the conclusion these articles didn't meet our general inclusion criteria and there's consensus for this. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think these bundling can solve the problem then keep it up. After all they pass our guidline WP:NCRIC. Störm (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But guideline is not substitute to common sense. They passed your guideline based on generic statistics. A played for B in X year. That's all. And that's why they failed to pass WP:GNG and will forever remain permanent stubs. They can't be improved to meaningful biographies because they already failed the more meaningful criteria. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said keep them in the form of table list because we don't have much to say about them. Störm (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Störm's idea is perfect and we can merge into list articles such as List of Sri Lankan cricketers, List of Indian cricketers. More importantly, these 2 list articles should be filled as soon as possible as there are more possibilities of articles getting deleted due to these naming errors, verifiability, missing given names. Abishe (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When list becomes large in size then we can split the list into like List of Sri Lankan cricketers:A much like List of United Kingdom MPs: A which they use for overall navigation. Störm (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am working in my sandbox on the outlines for a proposal on this subject. Feedback (at that location or its talk page) is appreciated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Lugnuts. Others should be discussed separately per WP:TRAINWRECK. feminist (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all -- Wikipedia is not a place to house a collective list of athletes, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, with vague names where statistical/directory source does not satisfy WP:GNG and hard to WP:V, failing to meet the core of criteria for any stand alone article to be created and stay in Wikipedia website unless they are accompanied with other references. If it is allowed to be kept, then millions of athletes in different disciplines with single statistical/directory source would flood Wikipedia and strip away/muddles two of the main Wikipedia policies/guidelines (GNG) and verifiability.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per User:CASSIOPEIA --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all per Dweller. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect all. The lack of sources giving any details causes GNG to be failed by a wide margin. Keeping the history is worthless because the contents are (a) prose versions of the statistics being cited (WP:NOTSTATS), and (b) the sources are predominantly subscription-only websites, making the content unverifiable for most readers. Sandstein 09:59, 26 December 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. G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor895/Archive Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Chiu Yeng (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 the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Notability (people). The article has been padded out with many citations, but ultimately I do not see any strong claim to notability that warrants an independent article. Many of the sources are weak, blog-like, primary sources (i.e. links to her personal Instagram and webpage), or only related to the article subject via her father. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The subject had alternative name. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Matthew_hktc 13:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: the namespace Sabrina Ho was protected from creation for the concern of "Repeatedly recreated A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc.", so did Draft:Sabrina Ho, Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng. Matthew_hk tc 13:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I disagree.

None of this has to do with her father. And we're only cracking the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more here. Cashannam (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Note: User:Cashannam, the article creator, was suspected as a sock as block evasion. Matthew_hk tc 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ,,, Spam namedrops that should've stuck with LinkedIn. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO and sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wrong. NetEase gave her an award for being the most influential art celebrity of the year. Also founding Macau's first art auction house with China Poly Group Corporation is a widely recognized, enduring accomplishment in her field. Cashannam (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add multiple keep votes. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I made multiple keep votes? I made a single keep vote (above). The rest of my posts are responses to other user's commentary. Cashannam (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't get it: did the Delete voters look at the cites Cashnnam put up? The subject's discussed in detail in high quality media sources. Meets the GNG, done deal. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assess the links Cashnnam posted above, one by one:

• This is not an independent source, and the coverage is not in-depth. Article subject may have contributed monetarily to the publisher. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations is not an independent source? Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has "partnered" with a UN fund and potentially even donated to the fund. Either way, the source is clearly not independent of the article subject. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Virtually every country in the world is a United Nations member and contributes money. Does that mean if the UN writes an article about working with the United States or President Trump it's not independent? Cashannam (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not comparable. Also, this piece is essentially a press release. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This was done by an unpaid Forbes contributor, not a paid member of staff. This is essentially a blog platform. The coverage is not particularly in-depth. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a two page article detailing her career. Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, anyone can contribute to this "Forbes contributors" platform. These are not independent, paid journalists. This is not "real Forbes". Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, however, Steve Forbes's daughter is pictured next to Chiu Yeng in the article... at the event the article is covering. Cashannam (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, still not a reliable source. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SCMP is a reliable source. However, the coverage still only places her in relation to a single event. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This statement proves you didn't actually READ any of my sources. The coverage explores her entire career. I just listed it above in relation to Chiu Yeng meeting the Prime Minister of East Timor. You read one sentence that I wrote and replied instead of looking at the article! Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article why do you claim it's about a single event when it's not at all about a single event?

http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/arts-music/article/2122384/unesco-partner-sabrina-ho-artfully-dabbles

Cashannam (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it places her in relation to a single event. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, Forbes contributor platform. Basically a blog. A photo in a gallery, not in-depth coverage. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Forbes contributor. It's a Forbes Asia special report written by their staff. Did you read it? Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read it. It says "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". It's not a Forbes staff member. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask again. Did you READ the article? It does not state what you claim at all. Please specify where I can find the language "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". https://www.forbes.com/pictures/fdgk45jklf/sabrina-ho-chiu-yeng-25/#35f0797d56ac Cashannam (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text I quoted is visible if you click through to the article that the photo is associated with. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SCMP again, same author as above. Multiple sources, intellectually independent of one another, are required to establish notability. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources... SCMP, Forbes, the United Nations... Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the links you posted, only SCMP is a reliable source. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes and the United Nations aren't reliable sources? Cashannam (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons I have already explained, no, not in this particular instance. Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Event bio – not any sort of publication/media coverage. Not an independent source.

A subject like this has a lot of money to hire a PR firm with the right connections to help churn out a few puff pieces. But there aren't enough solid sources to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and therefore this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. But just because she may have the money to do what you described doesn't mean she has! Wikipedia:Assume good faith Cashannam (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you linking to AGF? That policy is intended for Wikipedian editors, not the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cashannam:, According to citation given by Cunard (何超盈伙教科文組織開發大數據 聯同《福布斯》數據庫 解決教育就業問題. Ming Pao (in Chinese (Hong Kong)).), Forbes had business relationship with Ho Chiu Yeng, so even it was done by Forbes / Forbes Asia staff, it hardly an independent secondary source. Matthew_hk tc 15:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your statements are filled with inaccuracies and I have responded to each (above). Cashannam (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. promotionalism all by itself is a violation of WP:NOT, and a cause for required deletion unless it can be fixed. It this case, it cannot be fixed, because essentially every one of the references is a promotional press release, and therefore unreliable, and there would be almost no content. And borderline content combined with promotionalism is another good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note – Cashannam is canvassing for "Keep". Citobun (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Lam Ho, the user Cunard pointed out that if you Google Emily Lam Ho's Chinese name... there is a wider variety of sources than in English. Since I am not a Chinese speaker, I posted on their talk page asking if they can have a look at this article too... perhaps Cunnard can add new insight not yet discussed.

If that's "canvassing" so be it. This article should go or stay based on quality and content. The actions of a specific user are irrelevant. Cashannam (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know I'm looking for a "Keep" vote? Perhaps Cunard will review Google in Chinese and find there are no sources at all. Wikipedia:Assume good faith Citobun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashannam (talk • contribs) 2017-12-20T04:23:58 (UTC)

Please review the policy at Wikipedia:Canvassing. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Canvassing, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

I posted on Cunard's talk page: "Having read your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Lam Ho, since you are familiar with Chinese names and Googled hers, would you mind also having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiu Yeng Ho? Thanks."

I did not violate Wikipedia's canvassing policy. Cashannam (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this an acceptable notification per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

...

On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

...

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Editors known for expertise in the field

Cunard (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]