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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delanie Wiedrich[edit]

Delanie Wiedrich (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 almost feel horse from saying the same thing over and over again in this matter. Miss America contestants are not default notable. We need widespread, indepth broad sourcing. Not just home town paper and radio reports and internal pageant bios. That is all we have here in the article. I looked to see if I could find either broader coverage or sustained coverage and found neither. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – Has sufficient Google News results for it to be considered notable. J947 00:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per J947 above --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The news sourcing is all local and around the even of winning a state beauty pageant. It clearly is not enough to show notability. We had a long discussion on this on the ptlroject page for beauty pageants and it was clearly determined that this type of localized short burst of coversge was not enough to sgow notability. There needs to either by broad coverage in depth for the peageant which there is not or coverage of somethin else which there is not. The above votes also neglect the fact that mere showing up in a google news search does not show that the sources are providing theindepth coverage required by GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They're not all local. J947 18:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Which source is not local?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep article over qualifies WP:GNG which is basic yardstick for establishing notability on Wikipedia on second look nominator of article is currently answering a case on "his Behaviour of nominating numerous articles for deletion without taking time to read reference provided" Celestina007 (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are prejudicing the nomination based on alleged behavior of the nominator without considering the nomination itself. This is just wrong. The article does not pass GNG. I looked into the sources and to claim that they pass GNG misrepresents GNG. You don't pass GNG with hometown newspaper citations, a few human interest stories, and articles in your college paper. To claim this article passes GNG is to misrepresent what GNG is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "on second look" do you not understand. They clearly made their mind up prior to seeing the ANI. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable BobLaRouche (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax. — ξ^xplicit 04:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yong-hwa Ryu[edit]

Yong-hwa Ryu (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 looks like a WP:HOAX - none of the references actually work, the content in the lead doesn't match the tables, all social media is private with little followers, and IMDB references are probably forged as well. There's no evidence this person was linked with any of the films/shows cited here Evaders99 (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubasa Amami[edit]

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

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

A biography of a living person that lacks reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Sources provided are unsuitable for notability and include directory listings and primary sources.

The ja.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability, primarily consisting of non notable filmography and including trivia such as the subject's "hobby is playing with pets".

The appearance in a band is not indicative of notability. Per linked article (Ebisu Muscats), there are currently 29 members of the musical ensemble, and 45 past members. The other band is non notable.

I am also nominating the following related page because it's similar in content and scope; the subject is member of the two bands in question; ja.wiki article is likewise not indicative of notability.

• Moe Amatsuka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both articles were recently created by Special:Contributions/Gstree.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. While I usually don't approve of bundled nominations for porn stars, these two come from the same mass production run of poorly sourced articles for winners of the same non-notable award. Anything that looks even remotely reliable consists of trivial mentions. Remaining sources are the usual film databases, vendors and the award's site along with porn-following tabloid. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete We don't keep BLPs with crappy sources and the assertion is that the award is some inhouse effort. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One reliable source documenting a porn award which confers some notability, but nothing else. Search tools yield nothing reliable or dedicated. Out with it. Tapered (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: She's part of the jpop band Sexy-J.^[1]

• Delete both. Gene93k's analysis hits the nail on the head. The argument that being a member of a marginally notable at best, bargain-basement-porn-knockoff of the Pussycat Dolls is enough to demonstrate notability fails miserably. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable adult film actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abscription[edit]

Abscription (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 speedied this and it was cluelessly reverted here. As noted in the speedy nomination, this article is completely sourced to unreliable, WP:SPS refs from the company Ribomed Biotechnologies, Inc. and, was created by a SPA. This is 100% advertisement and would have to be completely rewritten from reliable sources if it were to remain in the encyclopedia. Opening a completely-waste-of-time deletion discussion. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under WP:G11 - I concur with the nominator here. Promotional nonsense, obviously promotional, with no reason I can think of to decline the Speedy Deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think it's notable (or even comprehensible) enough, indeed, thanks for spotting it. PaleoNeonate (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointed out by User:DennisPietras, here. credit where credit is due. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete having been the one who stumbled upon this article and brought it to jytdog's attention, and being a newbie, I don't know if I'm supposed to vote, but, I agree it should be dispatched with speedily. I found it enormously entertaining that Adam9007 has a userbox on their page which indicates that they support "... deletion of articles that violate policies and guidelines." and yet they opposed this one that even a newbie spotted! DennisPietras (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the easiest article to evaluate for deletion, so different opinions are likely. The criteria for speedy deletion are also rather restricted. I think your vote indeed counts. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Further analysis of article Again, I don't know if it is customary to do this, but in response to @PaleoNeonate: about the difficulty of evaluating the article, I'll write this. IF I thought there was an acceptable source in the article, it might be a candidate to be incorporated into Transcription (biology)#Promoter escape or Abortive initiation. Abortive initiation is an informative article created by @Iamozy:, who put Abscription into the "see also" section of that article. So, I believe that an old fart like me and a young subject-expert like Iamozy both agree that there is nothing in abscription worth having in an article about what RNA polymerase does early on. DennisPietras (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This assay might eventually become standard in the industry; however, in the mean time, it is a copyrighted process. It has been cited in the scientific literature, but is overwhelmingly cited by the original developers (those who also own the patents). I vote delete and suggest a very brief mention is included in a parent article (maybe bisulfite sequencing?) If included into another article, the patents should not be cited. I suggest: M. Hanna and D. McCarthy (2009), "Abstract #5173: Abscription-based, bisulfite-free, sensitive detection of methylated CpG islands", American Association for Cancer Research, 69 (9): 5173. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 06:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the revert of speedy mentioned in the nomination seems perfectly reasonable to me. The article text does not promote any particular company, person or publication; it does not say "abscription is a fantastic new technique that will cure cancer and clone unicorns" or anything like it, and even if it did it would hardly meet the WP:G11 barrier of would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION.. Of course, it's still a single-primary-source topic, so it should be deleted, but not as a G11 speedy (and I do not see any other fitting CSD). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Boi[edit]

Angel Boi (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 musician - WP:GNG not met. Article has survived for 7 years with no independent, reliable sourcing - no evidence of any sustained coverage. (Note - during my WP:BEFORE I also came a cross a similarly-named act Lil Angel Boi who definitely isn't might possibly be the same person) Exemplo347 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm amazed it made it this long with a single reference. That reference, BTW, is not a WP:RS so for all intents and purposed this thing has been unreferenced for years. Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actually I nominated an article yesterday or the day before that had been around since at least 2013 with the only reference being to a wordpress blog that expressly described itself as a fan site for the subject. So I am not surprised this article has survived so long with no reliable sourcing. There is clearly not enough here to pass the general notability guidelines so the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the two sources are unreliable PR stories. A brief search online showed one passing mention under "Lil Angel Boi". That's it. So this completely fails WP:GNG as well as WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Also added ((primary sources|date=March 2017)) to the article. (non-admin closure) J947 02:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graphiq[edit]

Graphiq (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)

Clear company-webhosted advertising and also contributed by clear involved employees and affiliates, there's no automatic inherited inherited notability from anything or anyone and all sources here are either their own websites or press releases, including the supposedly independent ones since they themselves quote, label or source the company itself which wouldn't satisfy our simplest policies since we always need genuine independent sources. Searches found nothing but clear published and republished business announcements. Our policies are stated as non-negotiable against company webhosts g because it's unacceptable in an encyclopedia. In fact, what confirms this was and still is a company-hosted advertisement, the talk page has a label that states "User was paid for their contributions". To analyze the current sources:

• 1 is company profile
• 2 is same (company website)
• 3 is a trade publication profiling the company's own images
• 4 is same as 1-2
• 5 is same above
• 6 is same above
• 7 is same above
• 8 is another clearly labeled trade publication press release
• 9 is trivial
• 10 is same as before
• 11 is company profile
• 12-20 is same again
• 21 is company website
• 22 is company press release
• 23-25 is same
• 26 is company website
• 27-28 are same as earlier
• None of this satisfies our simplest standards WP:CORPDEPTH which says coverage must be independent significant and not trivial. In considerations to the above, my searches instantly found pages of PR: see
• First 10 are clear PR
• 10 is same
• 10 is same
• 10 is same
• 10 is same
• Until the pages actually start repeating the links.
• Also, of the current sources, they all fit the above criteria:
• 1 is a press release in trade publisher
• 2 is trivial, wherever published
• 3 is a mere announcement
• 4 is again
• 5 is again
• 6 is same as 1, complete with the mirrored PR consistency
• 7 is exactly same as above
• GNG has never been an immediate policy because we as an encyclopedia control what we accepted, not a mere guideline that says itself "may be presumed [but not guaranteed]".

SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Note that the sources listed below are not aligned with the chronology presented in the deletion nomination above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and analysis - These are the same exact sources analyzed above in terms of publication because:
• 1 is a "starting company" PR piece
• 2 is a trivial mention in a tech blog (regardless of name)
• 3 is another tech publication
• 4, 5, 6 and 7 are same
• 8 is a trivial mention alongside the notables of Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, etc. so notability is not inherited
• 9, 10, 11 and 12 are clear PR including the given label of the company's involvements, a clear criteria by WP:CORPDEPTH ("routine notices, announcements and mentions will not establish notability"). Shown how they're not satisfying both our standards and policies. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the second recent proposal for deletion of this article. I like the above 'References' listing and would favor adding the new items in it to the new 'Further reading' section in the article with a request to emphasize the norm to future editors -- "it's better to work to integrate the sources and their contents into the article itself." Beyond that, while it's not complete I'm going to rest for now my favoring keeping the article on the Further reading (with 'External links' maybe the better heading for the section) plus my response to the first proposal. Swliv (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What is your policy for showing we accept these articles? Because the two we always use here are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:What Wikipedia is not and "it's better to work to integrate the sources and their contents into the article itself" when it's not satisfying said policies. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• All your blizzard of numbers. What's wrong with '7' for example, NYTimes? Number of employees; how people work there; reach; type of databases; do I need to go on? have you bothered to look? What about the Fox News cite (and I give the DoubleClick good weight too) from my first response? It's not a top rank article but it's something, real, in a fast-moving market I know I don't understand well. I was glad to find it (finally) on the "moose-" hunt and glad to improve it so it would help more encyclopedia users find, appreciate and hopefully improve it in the future. The 'patent troll' lawsuits? They don't interest me enough at the moment to do more than say 'Fine in External links' but they are independent enough for me for WP:GNG if you really need a policy to see the basic functionality. What is inherently wrong with "tech publications"? And how is the NYTimes a "tech publication"? I don't understand your approach: Ignoring my first Talk post. Shunting off to this second effort in a new place without any acknowledgement of the responses to your first, outvoted effort; or any referral to those of us who responded to your first try. (Common courtesy, I have to say.) Ignoring/inexplicably, cursorily demeaning the other editor's efforts. Wow. Put an NPOV on the article if you're really bothered, try to prod more effort, move on, keep an eye on it. Does that help at all or is (speedy, bulldozer) 'Delete' the only answer you'll accept? You're not getting it from me by a long shot yet. What's 'we always use'? Do you and yours have examples of articles you've managed to delete? Or are they just happily gone for good, out of sight? I see your WP:CORPDEPTH. Independence is one criteria (with External links starting to make up that gap) but there are other features of Audience and Depth that are better covered already in the article. Missing -- except maybe implicitly in, say, Audience -- is the Fox News example: If the products are being used it ought to be covered as best it can be, in my opinion. I see the "Advertising, marketing or public relations" paragraph in the 'is not' policy but I don't see this article as being that. It's a private company, five years old or so. It's running hard. Its website tells a lot about it. It motivated an affiliated individual to want to see it in Wiki. The article and editor've been chastised and also cleared of any horrible, permanently disabling wrongdoing associated with those tainted, amateur-mistake beginnings; and it's grown from there. External links show it's not unknown in the world, someone has to do the work to upgrade further and the links give a good place to start as do the upgraded templates now on the Talk page. I hope you can get your head around all that. I'm at a bit of a loss; you seem -- to go back to my beginning here -- to think you can quickly fling lists and numbers and never get into the subject at all; typo after typo doesn't help your presentation or credibility. (I know you've pushed me to lots of sentence fragments, here. Apologies if they bother you as much as typos do bother me.) I'm not questioning your motive; but your tactics and process and objective do sting; and take a lot more time to deal with than you seem to be putting in to proposing deletion (and not bothering to deal with responses). I see you hurting the encyclopedia by taking out a now-3rd-ranked but helpful bit of an article; a bit which is a fine platform for more work as it's warranted; a bit which would leave a definite hole if removed. Enough, probably too much. Keep. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but move to Draft space to remove promotionalism Most of the sources are indeed unusable, but the Aug. 6 Lohr article in the NYT is substantial coverage--I've sometimes been a little skeptical of its BITS section , but this seems like good reporting. The INC. article also, the PR-influenced, isn't too bad. The patent troll material is significant also. (The later article by Lohr defended just above is however only in small part about the company). The inclusion of all the PR does make for a promotional article. The question we now face, is for what does seem to be a significant company, how do we remove the promotionalism ? I think that anyone arguing keep simply on the basis that the promotionalism can be removed is not giving an adequate reason, unless they as a competent editor are actually prepared to remove the promotionalism themselves. If I was willing to do it, I would have !voted keep, and done it, as I 've done for an article day or two ago -- and many times before. Bt since I'm not interested in this one, unless someone else is, the fairest thing to do is to move it to draft space until someone does fix it. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would the Draft process mean that the current article is completely gone from the encyclopedia -- for ‘Search’, internal and external, for example; for links to Graphiq from elsewhere in Wiki -- for however long re-drafting may take? The question gets to my ‘adequate reason’ for keeping the article while improvements continue to be made. It seems to me to be an important, small private company. It has a significant predecessor (DoubleClick, sold to Microsoft) and important competitors (IBM and Google were the other two in the Lohr article I read at random from the list, each of the three receiving about 1/4 of the article; with a serious testament to the 'fast-growing start-up' Graphiq in 2013 there). I happened on Graphiq via its MooseRoots.com site through a credit line in Fox News. I wouldn’t want to take Wikipedia out of the loop by removing a substantial four-year-old article even temporarily and possibly indefinitely. Some of the complaint here still goes back to the article’s beginnings which have been considerably -- and to other editors' satisfaction -- addressed years ago. No one else here has addressed the alternative of restoring the NPOV template, less drastic than deleting or moving to Draft mode and a good motivator to steady improvement. Still a Keep. Swliv (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be removed from Google and other external search engines which honor our guidelines about which items to index, but would remain in some external indexes that do not. It would continue to be searchable within Wikipedia--it would show up as being in Draft, and this AfD discussion would also be findable. Even if it were deleted entirely, the afddiscussion would remain findable within WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG. (1) Any opinion on WP:NPOV template as a less drastic solution? (2) I like that at least within WP the search would lead to the Draft but feel it would still leave a big gap. In the last 90 days 35 average with a few nice spikes to 60-and-above users have accessed the article daily. As flawed as it is I think those users were helped and not damaged by finding what we currently have. But I've convinced myself. I hereby add: Favor NPOV. It would improve user experience with the warning and encourage users maybe to pitch in and help. (3) We don't seem to be moving toward complete deletion but if it occurred, along with the afd continuing available there's also the ability by an administrator to revive the article (to put into Draft, for instance) upon request so all the work done to date is not lost, am I correct? Thanks again. SwisterTwister Did my response have too much annoyance in it for you to bother to respond (even after your running me around as documented and my other concerns with your approach)? I'm sorry, if so. I didn't even address your opening phrase -- "Clear company-webhosted advertising" -- which, to me, goes to motive for a good number of editors like myself, I think, who've acted in good faith, in line with policies as we understand them and in the interest of the encyclopedia; not to mention the editor who pursued and cleared, to his or her satisfaction, the original unintentional breach of policy. Yes, I still have my displeasure with your approach and tone and I continue to be sorry -- I'm puzzled by what you're trying to accomplish; how you think removal would improve WP; your combination of rigor and quick-to-all-or-nothing-solution. Maybe NPOV will help some, for you too. Maybe 2-1/2-to-1 current vote has you fuming off-page. Anyway, I've reopened an approach to you here because you've, notably, not acknowledged my response to your question in any way. I hope you can find a way through your opinion(s) to try to join in this hopefully collaborative, I'd call it, editorial decision-making process. Thanks. For the record, also: Still a Keep. Cheers all. Swliv (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  It is not enough to say that there is somewhere someplace promotionalism...it must be identified so that the problem is actionable.  However, I will say that the first sentence is incomprehensible jargon and the second not much better, and if we have editors paid to work on this article, maybe we can ask them to lower the reading level of the lede.  Even if I don't really know what this company's product is, Reuters and AP have a clear idea, and they are the ones that count.  The heritage from DoubleClick seems to carry a lot of weight.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, you've set an impossible condition: If there are specific promotional elements the article shouldn't be deleted because they can be fixed, and unless there are specific elements it shouldn't be deleted (presumably because we then can't be sure it's promotional. What makes this article appropriate for deletion is the use throughout of inadequate sources accompanied by a pervasive promotional tone--it would have to be rewritten from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a company one of whose products is advertising.  And DoubleClick is hardly a stranger to advertising as a product.  Removing advertising is called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Are we also going to censor the previous name of the company "FindTheBest"?  That name by itself is promotional.  The majority of the article at this point is references.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "2017 February 26" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

for the article? Swliv (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was Move to Draftspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2 for Faith[edit]

Take 2 for Faith (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 film that fails WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft it's not possible to tell what kind of notoriety or coverage it'll get till it's released. If it becomes a hit, it might be notable, but we can't tell about that now. By moving it to draftspace, we can keep the content and hopefully add sources, or delete the draft if the film is a flop. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy/Draftify until such time that the film is able to meet the GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft/userpace as per above. Lepricavark (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If sources pop up someone can go to WP:REFUND & have it undeleted, At present the film isn't notable so the best solution is to delete for now (Once moved to draft - If the film becomes a flop it wold mean the draft would have to go to MFD so it would've meant all this moving & flaffing around for nothing whereas deletion is one simple click and undeletion is again one simple click). –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Badloe[edit]

Sandeep Badloe (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)

Looking over the sources they seem to tend towards things like facebook and his personal website. This is not the level of sources to show he is actually a notable musician or that he passes the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Likely promotional, and seems to be written like an advertisement. Also, fails notability criteria for music and general notability. - TheMagnificentist 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. As no one has expressed any desire for deletion except the nominator, it is safe to close this half a day early per WP:SNOW. Leaving it up would not change the consensus. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetan Augsburger[edit]

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

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

The league Augsburger plays in is not one that playing in it grants notability. The sources are not enough to pass the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep I've never edited or considered a hockey article in my time here yet it took me about two seconds to confirm that per WP:NHOCKEY "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league" is the first criterion and that the National League A (NLA) in which he plays "is a professional ice hockey league in Switzerland. It is the top tier of the Swiss hockey league system". Nom should be withdrawn. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per criterion 3 of NHOCKEY. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - yes, NHOCKEY seems well satisfied. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets criterion 3 of WP:NHOCKEY - has played over 200 matches in National League A per the hockeyDB.com reference in the article. Hack (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: More than a two second glance of NHOCKEY would have revealed the very first sentence of the criteria. That sentence is "For lists of the leagues considered to satisfy each of the criteria below, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. All other leagues do not meet the specified criteria." Criterion #1 does not, and never has, mean that anyone who's skated so much as a minute in a single game for the premier league in every nation is notable, or people'd be writing articles for beer leaguers in Bhutan and Mexico. Hack is right, however, that the subject meets criterion #3. Ravenswing 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hmmm it needs to be better worded then because on the face of it that's exactly what it implies to someone without a background in the material.--- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • How better to word it than, "For lists of the leagues considered to satisfy each of the criteria below, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject." And those lists are linked in that opening sentence, what am I missing?18abruce (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh dear, WP:MASTODONS. Didn't see that top line. My apologies. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Meets WP:NHOCKEY Criteria #3 with 200+ games played in Switzerland's National League A. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as noted above, meets criteria #3. Lepricavark (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NHOCKEY #3. Rlendog (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. I'm closing this early as no other users have !voted to delete the article, and given the direction the discussion is going, there's no evidence to suggest that keeping this open for the full seven days will change that. (non-admin closure). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Atkins (basketball)[edit]

Simon Atkins (basketball) (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)

Atkins has not played in one of the leagues that is listed as a league playing in grants notability for basketball players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep PBA players get a lot of media coverage. Atkins should pass the GNG easily: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 21:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG per above, PBA may not appear in list of NBASKETBALL leagues but is the top professional league in the Philippines. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per above, PBA seems professional enough to ensure notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep PBA satisfies the requirement of being the top pro league in the Philippines. Lepricavark (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep as coverage above demonstrates gng, so the unfortunate omission of PBA as a top level league in the basketball essay is irrelevant. Jacona (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources provided by Zagalejo, meets GNG. The rest of you should be providing sources as "plays for a top professional league" is not an automatic notability qualifier. That the PBA is not included in the guideline is not "irrelevant," the fact is that no one has done the legwork to investigate whether every single player appearing in a game - including the case where someone appears for just a few minutes in a single contest - are notable. It may be the case, but that's why the league isn't included in WP:NBASKETBALL. The other issue with the article is that there isn't a single source on it that is a reliable, independent source representing significant coverage of Atkins himself. This is a very common problem with a lot of basketball articles and it is bad practice Rikster2 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he meets GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL (or any other essay) is irrelevant to this discussion. Jacona (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I misunderstood you. Rikster2 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Zagalejo's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden-Harnett[edit]

Hayden-Harnett (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 coverage in independent reliable sources, which those in the article are not, so it fails WP:COMPANY. Tagged for notability since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable indy design house (2 people I understand). The article has had plenty of chances for improvement, but it did not occur. Coverage that I see is shallow and mostly in advertorially toned pieces. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. small company with insufficient RS coverage. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuoyo Egodo[edit]

Tuoyo Egodo (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:RLN, according to the source provided in the article, he has not yet played in Super League, the NRL or even the Challenge Cup. – skemcraig⊗ 20:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a rugby player, he is a rugby league player.Fleets (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've already had this discussion Fleets, it's perfectly acceptable to call RL players "rugby players". In Northern England, it's normal. – skemcraig⊗ 15:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we need to remember that this is a global wiki and must I'm afraid, and not to my liking, default to going with the global norm, or at least be more accurate when looking to clear or kill an article. Either way JPL should possibly tidy up their wording a smidge, because as previously he would pass the rugby union rationale, but fail one element of the current version of the RLN. As you can see one little word can make a world of difference.Fleets (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - professional in a pro league.Fleets (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:RLN. Number 57 22:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a second division, non-notable player. The article was created too soon. Mattlore (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional in a pro league, playing for a pro team.Chocolatebareater (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable rugby player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J947 03:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Khawaja[edit]

Haroon Khawaja (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)

While the subject received some press mentions, but fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Saqib (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be some doubt about last Afd, which removes my initial doubt. scope_creep (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is enough neutral stuff to consider this article. There may be some technical mistakes (as it is my first article) which I am ready to update. To validate Haroon Khawaja as a notable and politician i have found some more following links.

http://pakobserver.net/expert-group-calls-for-revision-of-proposed-elections-bill/

http://dailytimes.com.pk/islamabad/27-Jan-17/experts-not-happy--with--the-elections-bill-2017-

http://lahoreworld.com/tag/haroon-khawaja/ (this has several links)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvIx4RIsxe8 (and part 2 of this)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbxePKPl8Wk (and part 2 & 3)

Mr. Saqib has edited the article and removed whole of its content doesn't seem fair to me while now we have enough references about Haroon Khawaja.

Gresys (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First two references (Daily Times and Pak Observer) are already cited in the article despite the fact they both doesn't contain much information about the subject. YouTube interviews are usually not cited unless the video is produced by a well reputed source. The TV channels (Such TV and Royal News) who did interview are not considered a RS so I won't cite the YouTube interviews. lahoreworld.com source is not a RS. --Saqib (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per links added to the article by @Toddy1: during the AfD which closed with consensus to keep one week ago (also pinging closing admin: @Coffee:). Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy:: out of five references added to the article by Toddy1, three are unreliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain which sources you consider unreliable, and why.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore World and Pakistan Telegraph are a user generated news website with no editorial board. Both news website have no credibility. Pakistan Defence is a user generated forum and not a news website. --Saqib (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that Lahore World and Pakistan Telegraph are user generated news websites?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Pakistan Defence is a forum, mentioning it in the previous discussion was an error.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioning The Nation (a Pakistan newspaper), was also an error. I saw that Haroon Khawaja had written a column for it on 26 December 2016, and had not realised that that was the only column he had written for it (rather in the same way that Western politicians sometimes write columns for newspapers). There are hundreds of other articles mentioning him in The Nation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1:: Both sources Pakistan Telegraph and Lahore World) are clearly questionable sources with no editorial oversight so why not avoid them as they surely has a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. I don't know how to prove that both are unreliable sources but being a local, I never heard about them nor they're being used on Wikipedia as references apart from a couple of bio pages. --Saqib (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Thank you for explaining why you believe that Pakistan Telegraph and Lahore World might be "questionable sources" - you are a local, and have never heard of them.
But you do accept that the following sources are reliable?

• Pakistan Observer
• Daily Times
• The Nation

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, and I know the subject received several press mentions in The Nation but I wonder if merely getting press mentions makes one notable enough to warrant an entry on WP? majority of press mention in The Nation just quote his name and position and nothing else. I'm failed to find a single source which look like a bio or profile or even discuss about his education, career, family etc. Anyways, If you still disagree with me and think that getting press coverage makes one notable then lets close this nomination, keep the page and spend time on something else. Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the press coverage in reliable sources makes him notable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep As way too soon for another nomination per WP:DELAFD - "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favour of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think it is particularly helpful to fall back on a point of procedure to try and hasten the close of the Afd. There is obviously serious doubt as regards the notability of the subject in the mind of Saqib. Being closer to a culture gives you a much better understanding of it. The references raised by User:Toddy1 are mostly not there, and the article is hanging on by it's proverbial fingernails. In the last Afd, the premise was it passed WP:BASIC by coverage, but Saqib show the coverage is not reliable, hence, it is not enough to satisfy the BLP process. scope_creep (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability of a person is determined by physical ground facts and how citizens of Pakistan recognise the person. In this particular case building of Industrial estates, managing and hold different portfolio's have made HK a person who is respected and praised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelhashmi (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salbari High School[edit]

Salbari High School (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)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - article moved during discussion.

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, not really about a school as such, also fails WP:V JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Numerous sources found just by clicking "find sources" above. Yes, they're weak sources, but they're enough to satisfy the truly awful WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Exemplo347 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The school itself is notable under WP guidelines, but the article fails WP policy WP:TITLE, and the content can still fail other policies such as WP:V and WP:OR. The text of the article is not about the school. The article needs to be renamed to Salbari or it must be rewritten to only contain information pertinent to the high school. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deletion isn't cleanup... Exemplo347 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a cleanup, now it is at least pretending to be about the school! Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct name is Salbari Higher Secondary School (incorrectly moved from Salbari HS School to current name). I will move if it's OK, or can wait to see if it survives AfD. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that would have been my mistake, sorry. I was under the assumption that Google Maps had led me to Salbari as referred to in the article and based my edits on that one. In retrospect however, that Salbari was in another state although still close to Assam, so you get my confusion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to the correct title, leaving the redirect in place. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused in the same way. Salbari High School seems more notable than Salbari Higher Secondary School, but then I realized the description in the article didn't match the location of Salbari High School. Very interesting location. I'd be afraid of the tigers in Manas National Park, but apparently plenty of people live around there! Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph (Calcutta) made the same mistake.Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm waiting on the administrator's noticeboard discussion to resolve the RfC on secondary school notability. I found enough for WP:V of the school, at least, but not of all the content in the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that was quite disappointing. So... um... Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Struck my vote, as the RfC concluded that simple proof of existence is not enough to satisfy the GNG for Secondary Schools (in my opinion, the correct conclusion that brings Secondary Schools in line with every other subject). Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conclusion was that secondary schools require special consideration, and in particular that a search of local print media is necessary. We need someone fluent in local languages to look for us. There is no evidence of a search of local media in this AfD, especially as the nominator was not even aware the article is about Salbari Higher Secondary School rather than Salbari High School, which is in another state and about 150 miles away from the subject of the article. That is a big miss, and makes this AfD very questionable at the outset. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as a WWF-India model school (added to article with citations). Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has received press coverage, including some online in English (there is likely more offline and in other local languages) and been singled out for participation in a government program. Thanks to HyperGaruda for moving it to the correct title and to Jacknstock for finding and adding sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found articles in the largest selling English-language daily in the world (yes, the world), the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India, and the fifth most-widely read English newspaper in India – between the three, total circulation about 5,000,000. As you say, that's without any review of newspapers in indigenous languages or offline. The odd thing is that I initially thought that Salbari High School was more notable than Salbari H.S. School, and it turns out that it's merely bigger. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the credits for moving it to the correct name should go to Exemplo347. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some good refs. As a degree granting secondary school it clearly meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Speedy keep, I should say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given how many poorly-written articles exists about secondary schools nominating a very good one for deletion is not helpful at all. AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair to the nominator, the article was markedly different when nominated. It might not have been nominated in its present form. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence has been presented during this discussion to show that the article's subject meets our notability criteria. Therefore, this article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion, at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Anambra[edit]

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

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

This is a Nigerian local beauty pageant with little press coverage, other than that about the sex scandal involving the 2015 titleholder. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since the article is properly formatted, and fairly new, having only been put up late last year, I vote that we give this page a chance as long as more sourcing can be found by its editors.TH1980 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The peagant is quite notable in Nigeria

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The pageant is fairly new. It has gained coverage in reliable sources. I understand that most of the sources online are about the sex scandal, but the fact of the matter is that the pageant has been discussed one way or another.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is just state pageant and not a national pageant; not much history.--Richie Campbell (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete: per WP:1E and WP:TOOSOON. The references that exists are either press release from organizers or centered on controversies. It has produced only two winners, one of which is notable for something totally unrelated to being crowned a queen. This well written article could be notable in the future, but for now I don't think it is. Darreg (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG and wp:anybio as she has received significant coverage in reliable multiple sources independent of her , also she has won a beauty pageant in Nigeria which initially Brougt her to limelight.

Admin should perharps do a google search to see, for himself / herself Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: The article is not about a subject. It is about a pageant. I don't understand why you're commenting on the "notability" of one of the pageant winners. Just curious, were you making a case for Chizoba Ejike? If you were, please do not waste time because the Chizoba Ejike article was recently deleted via an AFD discussion. You can view said discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chizoba Ejike.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?}

• Delete - with no prejudice for future recreation if it becomes notable in years to come. Simply does not pass WP:GNG currently. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, subnational pageant, does not (yet) pass WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. — Sam Sailor 03:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local beauty pageant - doesn't pass WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 13:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article meets WP:GNG. it has enough significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Subnational beauty pageants is notable, in Pakistan and the United States. Nigeria is divided into states, it is time to accept that. Stanleytux (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Pablo Andrade[edit]

Juan Pablo Andrade (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)

None of the teams Andrade has played for have been part of fully professional leagues, so he does not meet the inclusion requirements for football players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - two of the sources (Soccerway and World Football) in the article show that 28 of his appearances for Union San Felipe between 2010 and 2012 were made in the Chilean Primera División which is listed as a fully professional league. Kosack (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL with professional appearances. Could User:Johnpacklambert please withdraw this nomination. Nfitz (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Nfitz (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Having played in the Chilean top flight, the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above votes. By playing in Chile's top football division the article passes WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Has played in a WP:FPL. Let's close this now. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• withdraw I have come to see I inadvertently overlooked some of his career when formulating this nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucatumumab[edit]

Lucatumumab (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 drug candidate was found not to be efficacious and never made it past Phase I clinical trials. Natureium (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Keep – Regardless of the efficacy or usefulness of the drug, this topic nevertheless meets WP:GNG, albeit on a possibly weaker level, because it has received enough independent coverage to qualify for an article. See some source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless evidence of actually significant secondary coverage emerges. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• of the refs brought above:

• • British Journal of Haematology not "maybe" primary. Absolutely primary.
  • Cardiovascular Week - this is an example of incompetent churnalism churning some low quality hyping of a primary source. oy.
  • Side Effects of Drugs Annual
  • Blood Journal - this is an abstract from the primary source mentioned above, essentially a directory listing in a book summarizing all clinical research done in 2012. not useful for N.
  • Immunotherapy in Transplantation: Principles and Practice. Bit better. A four sentence paragraph in a book. Still pretty passing mention-y.
  • Cancer Immunology: Bench to Bedside Immunotherapy of Cancers - As above, now a five sentence paragraph in a book. Still pretty passing mention-y.
  • Targeted Therapy in Translational Cancer Research (subscription required) - as with the 3rd ref above, just summarizes the Phase I trial.

A search on pubmed for reviews finds 4 refs in English. PMID 25249370 is like the OKish refs above, and just summarizes the Phase I paper. PMID 24555495 however has extensive discussion of the published science around this mAb as of its date (it was received in Sept 2013). PMID 19362983 is from 2009 and is very brief. It discusses 2 small Phase I trials under the old development name HCD-122. PMID 18336199 is too old to be relevant.

I did what I could to complete the story with the best refs I could find (which were not great) in these diffs.

I am on the fence about whether this should be kept or deleted. I won't moan either way, but this is not a slam-dunk "keep" by any means. It is borderline at best. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The original bjh article has been cited over 74 times in Google Scholar.Another paper on the subject in Blood [5] has been cited 140 times. A third in Leukemia & [6], 84 times. That's several hundred citations to the substances. We normally keep substances with even a few. DGG ( talk ) 11:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akwasi Owusu Ansah[edit]

Akwasi Owusu Ansah (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)

Ansah is a minor rapper without the coverage to justify a stand alone article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. On small independent label. No independent sources. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarboy[edit]

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

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The OkayAfrica source is the only reliable independent source I could find that discusses the subject. One reliable source is not enough to establish notability. None of the songs released by the artist charted on reliable charts, despite the article stating that some of his songs charted on the Billboard world album chart. Both the Africa and Playdata charts are not reliable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no more notable today than he was back in June of 2016.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His page's currently lack reliable sources but here is one i found on OkayAfrica which discuss the subject [7]. He may not have be nominated for one of does A-list awards in Nigeria like The Headies but he was nominated for 2016 "Top Naija Music Awards" which is know as a B-list award in Nigeria that has nominated so many A-list act.. It's a keep from me, the artist may not have meet criteria 8 fully but i think the article deserve to be kept cause i have a believe more reliable source are coming; an so far he has been recognize for his one time breakthrough single "Hola Hola" which currently hit 1.2 million views on YouTube, so i think we should keep the article an help in improving it, it may be hard trying to improve this article because the name "Sugarboy" is a topic of many, but i believe we should give it a try.--Obari2Kay (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obari2Kay: You really need to read WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO before you create another article or participate in another AFD discussion. Being nominated for a non-notable award or receiving "millions" or views on YouTube are not legitimate reasons for a topic to be kept. None of what you said shows the subject being notable for stand-alone inclusion. As a matter of fact, you have failed to make a case for the subject.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Maybe in the future this subject will be notable, but I don't see any convincing evidence that's the case now. Nor was it at the last AFD. I cannot see what criterion of WP:MUSICBIO is met. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete & redirect. czar 21:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo Taeyang[edit]

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

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON (to add: Individual members of SF9, with the exception of Kang_Chan-hee, are NOT notable enough to have their own articles as their activities are exclusively within the group SF9 and nowhere else.) Tibbydibby (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

• Comment @ Tibbydibby: WP:TOOSOON is not a policy-based reason for deletion, could the deletion rationale be expanded, please? Prima facie the article doesn't look like much, but a search for the Hangul 유태양 reveals a lot of hits. I do not speak Korean, what do all these search results reveal? — Sam Sailor 20:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TOOSOON means not yet notable, an excellent reason for deletion. Not my field, but how can a "Pre-debut" performer possibly be already notable? DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably not, in which case a bold WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT per WP:ATD-R is a possible policy-based solution. — Sam Sailor 06:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sam Sailor: I expanded a little bit for the SF9 members that I opened AfD discussion with, but these members are only members of SF9, nothing more. This is why they are being deleted. Tibbydibby (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I trust you do what is right based on the sources. Do consider if a categorized ((R from member)) to the band article SF9 per alternatives to deletion would be a useful search term. — Sam Sailor 06:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rapid Delete Article cites no references. Only one result for all search tools at top, not a reliable sources. No reliable sources = no notability = delete. Tapered (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to band article SF9 as a categorized ((R from member)). Subject's name is a plausible search term, redirects are cheap, and redirecting rather than deleting is a policy based alternative that is supported by WP:MUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. — Sam Sailor 03:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SF9. As Sam Sailor said, redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) J947 05:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Dawon[edit]

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

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON (to add: Individual members of SF9, with the exception of Kang_Chan-hee, are NOT notable enough to have their own articles as their activities are exclusively within the group SF9 and nowhere else.) Tibbydibby (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

• Comment @ Tibbydibby: WP:TOOSOON is not a policy-based reason for deletion, could the deletion rationale be expanded, please? Prima facie the article doesn't look like much, but a search for the Hangul 이상혁 reveals a lot of hits. I do not speak Korean, what do all these search results reveal? — Sam Sailor 20:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Not independently notable outside of his group. — ξ^xplicit 01:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to band article SF9 as a categorized ((R from member)). Subject's name is a plausible search term, redirects are cheap, and redirecting rather than deleting is a policy based alternative that is supported by WP:MUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. — Sam Sailor 03:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a relevant article. Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Boyle[edit]

Leo Boyle (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)

Leo Boyle was an NCO with well-known Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment. However, Boyle does not qualify as notable under WP:SOLDIER. Virtually the entire page is anecdotal. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There appear to be a large number of links to Boyle. Many are because Boyle appears in the ((Band of Brothers (miniseries))) template.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Boyle died before the Band of Brothers tv series when its living subjects became more famous. He did not achieve the same level of fame, and thus doesn't, in my opinion, meet GNG. There is a Leo Boyle who was major general and later adjutant general in the Illinois National Guard in the 1950s and 1960s, according to a search at newspapers.com; I presume that is a different individual, is anyone sure? Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my !vote. While I think that GNG is weaker for Easy Company members who died before the miniseries and thus did not receive as much press, I'm not sure GNG isn't met, at least for Boyle, by coverage in books about Easy Company, especially given the level of detail about this individual's life included in those sources. If pressed, I'd !vote Weak keep on those grounds. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything of note in the article that would make him notable enough for an article, the main claim in the article is being wounded twice not unlike tens of thousands of other brave soldiers who did there duty that we dont have articles on either for similar reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I follow the links to News, Newspapers, Books, and NYT, I get nothing identifiable with the Leo Boyle to whom this article applies. If there's something I'm not seeing, I appreciate having it pointed out to me.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm sensitive to Smmurphy's comments, but also think the only reason he has this attention is because of the miniseries. Yes, he was there, did that, and came home. Nothing about his life during or after his service is otherwise notable by our standards. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William S. Evans, which resulted in deletion. I'm looking at Template:Band of Brothers (miniseries) and seeing many of these characters that do not warrant an article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CricNepal[edit]

CricNepal (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 appear to meet web notability criteria. Article lacks reliable sources, almost all citations are self published from the website itself. Can't find any sources online from non-trivial published works that demonstrate notability. Article also seems to have been created by the website's founder and has been deleted multiple times previously. Jevansen (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with the nominator, can't find any significant coverage in independent sources. Jenks24 (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Player clearly fails the subject-specific guideline, but this is irrelevant since there has been no successful attempt to indicate GNG either in this discussion or in article itself.

I can find nothing of substance on this player that would indicate the player has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In the article, one source is provided that discusses the player in three brief sentences along with a number of other players. A second brief source essentially consists of one simple quote from the player and short context. Additionally in this discussion only one other source was presented to support GNG, a source which essentially and briefly reports a single tweet made by the player.

In both the article and following a search myself, I can find nothing more of any substance on this player.

As an aside, I would suggest to keep voters, that the correct way to deal with gender bias on WP is to write more articles about notable women, not to lower the notability barrier for notable women. I would suggest players listed here, an article just three clicks away from this player's article as a good place to start for female players that would pass NFOOTY easily. Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheda Abdul-Rahman[edit]

Rasheda Abdul-Rahman (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)

Abdul-Rahman has not competed significantly at the adult level and thus does not meet our notability criteria for footballers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Completely fails WP:NFOOTBALL. JTtheOG (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:NFOOTBALL disadequately covers the top-tier of women's football and "adult" is not noted in any relevant notability guideline. NP:FOOTY's perpetually incomplete list of notable leagues is not reliable as a notability guideline - nor is it agreed upon as a notability guideline in a search of the group's archives. Further, this article does not fail WP:GNG. It could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Disappointing although not unsurprising to see the continued wikilawyering around the exact wording of the guideline from the user above. The word "adult" is not used because "Tier 1 International Match" and "competitive senior international match" are the formal ways of describing adult football as opposed to youth football (e.g. U17 or U20)... Number 57 10:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to constitute an unnecessary personal attack, violating WP:NPA and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Please remain civil even if you don't agree with your peers. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting behavioural issues should not be pointed out? Perhaps we should close ANI in that case. Number 57 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm saying the use of the words "Disappointing although not unsurprising" consist of unnecessary sarcasm, and appear to be a personal attack. I don't see why those words needed to be here. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wasn't sarcasm – she does this all the time. Number 57 19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NFOOTY; youth football doesn't count Spiderone 11:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's a surprising amount of media coverage for an African female footballer. Noting [8] and other articles referenced in the article are borderline WP:GNG and keeping in mind WP:BIAS we should be fighting Gender bias on Wikipedia and encouraging such articles. Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gender has nothing to do with it – we just deleted an article on male footballer who was an U20 international but hadn't played in a fully pro league. It's a shame we can't seem to have an AfD on a female footballer without this sort of misrepresentation... Number 57 21:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gender has everything to do with it, with the serious systemic bias that exists in the the sport. It's unfortunate that you turn to wikilawyering rather than following the spirit of WP:BIAS, WP:IGNORE, and WP:COMMON. Given the media coverage that this player has received, despite the bias that exists, the article should be kept. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't have anything to do with it because we are being consistent with the deletion process regardless of gender. It also seems strange that you're accusing me of wikilawyering considering you apparently consider it a personal attack based on the statement above (you also don't seem to understand what wikilawyering is – there's a guide here). Number 57 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pointing out wikilawyering was not the personal attack. It was the unnecessary and insulting sarcasm that you layered it in "Disappointing although not unsurprising". These words were not necessary. The whole point is that we shouldn't be consistent with deletion on the basis of gender, given the bias that exists in the primary sources. Given what actually exists in primary sources already, then WP:GNG has been met. Nfitz (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should be used to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Number 57 19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm saying the top U-20 national team player in a country is generally notable when they aren't female. So we shouldn't be stuck up on our own rules to not consider them notable because they are female. We have different notability rules for different sports already. Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • But that simply isn't true. We routinely delete articles on players who are youth international regardless of the country they play for (as an example this Cameroonian U20 international (since recreated after he played in a fully-pro league) or this Irish U21 international – note the comments in both regarding youth caps not conferring notability). Number 57 19:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • In neither case, do I see the media coverage that I see here. In neither case are we talking about the top player on the team. I don't see the basis for the comparison. Nfitz (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HMLarson and NFitz. Sources satisfy WP:BASIC. Her status as a pre-eminent youth footballer in Ghana should be considered for a holistic approach to deletion, which I feel is needed for articles on people and activities from non-western countries. Frankly, we wouldn't be having this discussion about a woman's footballer in the US with the same credentials.--TM 12:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Namiba: I'm pretty sure we would – we have consistently deleted articles on footballer with youth caps regardless of their nationality and gender. As an example, this AfD resulted in the deletion of an article on an American player who was an U20 and U23 international. Unfortunately whenever we discuss the potential deletion of a female footballer various accusations of bias (and worse) start getting thrown around when I think we are actually very consistent. Number 57 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - This article fails WP:NFOOTY, but just might make the general notability guidelines due to the coverage the subject has received as an Anfrican female footballer. However I would not be totally opposed for a delete as well as this article also seems to fall under WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer. A plausible search term given that it is an NCAA Division 1 program. However, sole keep vote is erroneous, as this season satisfies none of the criteria suggested for college programs Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer team[edit]

2014 South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested WP:PROD by IP user. The user added one WP:PRIMARY source in an effort "...to validify article". Article still makes no claim to notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, and similar articles have been deleted before (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team. GauchoDude (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability and there is prior consensus supporting the deletion of these kind of articles as not inherently notable. GiantSnowman 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to South Carolina Gamecocks men's soccer - fails WP:NSEASONS as mentioned above, but the same policy says that in such cases, the page should ideally be redirected to the main article if it exists rather than being deleted outright. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - per Smartyllama's comment, although a delete could also be appropriate. Lacks the coverage to stand as an independent article. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think this fails WP:NSEASONS, it's a Division I NCAA program, that's the pinnacle of college soccer in the U.S. There are plenty of Division I football season articles, I think the same logic would exist here. If there's an issue with a lack of content, that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century. czar 22:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of dependent territory leaders in the year 2017[edit]

List of dependent territory leaders in the year 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

List of dependent territory leaders in the year 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Do we really need lists like this for every year? According to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we do not.

"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"

Firstly I don’t understand why you say “we do not” It is your opinion not the opinion of a group. Secondly they are a lot of list by year. I find List of elections by year, list of country by year and more others, Why a list of dependent territory leaders is not necessary? Concerning independent reliable sources. Why www.rulers.org and www. worldstatesmen.org are not independent and reliable sources? I understand if someone is not interested in archontology. If you are not it is no problem. But they are other persons whom are. And you don’t hold absolute truth Bogdan Uleia (talk)

The fact that other similar articles exist is not relevant to deletion discussions. Also, in the sources you give, you're not showing that the list topic has been discussed as a distinct set: you've posted two links to databases, which might or might not be able to give the lists being discussed here as a database extract, but which certainly don't feature them as a topic. --Slashme (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm including List_of_dependent_territory_leaders_in_the_year_2016 in this discussion. --Slashme (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and similar lists: a list per decade is plenty. Maintaining a list of dependent territory leaders, a list of foreign ministers per year, a list of colonial governors per year etc. etc. like Bogdan is doing, is absolutely the kind of indiscriminate collection of data that should be moved to Wikidata and treated in summary form on Wikipedia. --Slashme (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of territorial governors in the 21st century as duplicate content. Would not be opposed to separating that into List of territorial governors in the 2000s and List of territorial governors in the 2010s for navigational ease. I have no general objection to these types of lists – world leaders are noteworthy (and popular) enough to justify duplicating existing databases to some extent. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of territorial governors in the 21st century, content fork.  Sandstein  18:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. See below on log page. Same may apply. (non-admin closure) J947 05:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Mutant Penguins[edit]

Attack of the Mutant Penguins (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)

Like Club Drive, this article was brought to AfD and closed as keep under shaky circumstances back in 2010 (see WP: Articles for deletion/Club Drive (2nd nomination) for the full story), and is due for reconsideration. Similar problems apply: The article has virtually no content, and the article subject has no claim to notability and very little coverage from notable/reliable sources. The article lists "Allgame review" as a source, but checking an archive of the now dead link I see Allgame in fact only had a brief synopsis of the game, no review or other significant content. Martin IIIa (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews) sources from contemporary magazines, as listed here. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • I consulted Mobygames before opening this AfD and was not impressed by the listing there. Of the 16 reviews listed, two have been determined to be unreliable, and only one has been confirmed to be reliable - GamePro, which doesn't help establish notability since during the 1990s they reviewed every single game that was released. On top of that, of the sources that haven't been determined to be unreliable, only five are in English.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NONENG allows non-English sources and that is not a valid deletion reason. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it's not really relevant how many other games have or haven't been reviewed. I see contemporary printed magazines with editorial staff. I sort of understand your position, but I don't agree the available sources are insufficient for GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NONENG allows non-English sources for citing facts, not for establishing notability. A notable subject should have lots of sources in the same language; having one or two sources each in lots of languages just establishes that the subject was released in lots of different countries. In some cases being released in many countries might suggest notability, but not for a first party video game. I don't understand your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • That is simply not true, this is in the notability guidelines "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. The general notability guldine section (please see WP:GNG the place the quote came from) would not say that sources don't have to be in English if that guideline did not accept them in the first place. If you still insist that the notability guldelines don't allow for non English sources can you please Show where that is explictally mentioned.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not completely unambiguous that the quoted passage is saying that non-English sources establish notability on English Wikipedia in every possible case. But more importantly, quoting policy without offering any reasoning is not convincing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • There would be no reason to for the General Notability Guidlines to even meniton that sources don't need to be in English if they did not count towards notability and I doubt that anyone closing this discussion would give that view any consideration. If you seriously want to contest this the best place would be a discussion at WP:N but I can imagine that such an argument would gain any traction.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many of the sources listed by MobyGames are reliable per WP:VG/RS. If it got significant coverage in offline, non-English sources, that's alright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll have to elaborate about these "many" sources which have been determined to be reliable; as previously noted, I checked the list and the only match I see is GamePro.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Decided against a third relst; a third nomination of this article might be needed. (non-admin closure) J947 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Val d'Isère Skiing and Snowboarding[edit]

Val d'Isère Skiing and Snowboarding (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)

Like Club Drive, this article was brought to AfD and closed as keep under shaky circumstances back in 2010 (see WP: Articles for deletion/Club Drive (2nd nomination)), and is due for reconsideration. Similar problems apply: No claim to notability, no sources, and the only hint of coverage is unsourced scores from two Atari-specific sites. My own researches on the era have turned up nothing on the game beyond the obligatory GamePro review. --Martin IIIa (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews) sources from contemporary magazines, as listed here. I don't have access to the magazines with those exact dates and IA doesn't seem to have most archived either. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm even less impressed by the Mobygames listing for this game than the one for Attack of the Mutant Penguins. It actually adds to the body of evidence that this game is not notable. Only nine reviews, and when you cross off the ones from unreliable and/or foreign language sources, all you're left with is Diehard Gamefan and the obligatory GamePro review. --Martin IIIa (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NONENG allows non-English sources and that is not a valid deletion reason. I see contemporary printed magazines with editorial staff. I sort of understand your position, but I don't agree the available sources are insufficient for GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NONENG allows non-English sources for citing facts, not for establishing notability. A notable subject should have lots of sources in the same language; having one or two sources each in lots of languages just establishes that the subject was released in lots of different countries. In some cases being released in many countries might suggest notability, but not for a first party video game. Again, I don't see the level of contemporary coverage one would expect from a notable or even significant game. There are unreleased games which got more reviews than this.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:GNG literally says "in any language". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • Looking at it in context, it's not completely unambiguous that the part of the GNG you're talking about is saying that non-English sources establish notability on English Wikipedia in every possible case. But more importantly, linking to a policy page without addressing my reasoning is not convincing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on GamePro, GameFan, VG, and VG&CE reviews alone (if MG is to be trusted), we could support a small article on this topic. It doesn't necessitate that we should, but deletion still wouldn't be the best choice. Discuss redirect options? Perhaps it would be worth creating a page on Atari sports games where topics like this can redirect? czar 21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess at this point I have to come right out and say that, while I realize this is not a popular view, I've never felt that the probable existence of sources "out there" is anywhere near as strong an argument for keeping an article as actually having content cited to notable/reliable sources in the article. It just seems like an indirect way of challenging the editor(s) favoring deletion to prove a negative. I have no idea what a worthwhile redirect for this article would be. Atari sports games doesn't strike me as a topic that we could write much about, though I'm no expert on Atari history.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abella Anderson[edit]

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

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

The awards that Anderson has won are not enough to show notability. The sourcing is also very lacking. This article has on occasion been deleted in the past, and there never have been any good arguments to keep it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and detail. No noteworthy creative or artistic contribution to the film industry. No encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. Virtually no independent sourcing, negligible independent reliable sourcing. There's never been a credible argument that the awards claimed by the subject met the "well-known and significant" standard, just a lot of handwaving and attempts to bootstrap claims of notability that were ultimately rooted only in promotional efforts. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Suleiman[edit]

Amna Suleiman (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)

She is really just the lead figure in a news article related to specific policies of the Gaza gorvernment. Her actions are not sustained or noticed enough to rise above the level of news, and this falls under Wikipedia not being a newspaper. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Suleiman is one of BBC's 100 women, and coverage of BBC 100 focuses on influential women, not on the Gazan government. The New York Times source also focuses entirely on Suleiman, with government policy as background context. New York Times plus BBC coverage of this person over 9 months apart is sustained enough for notability, especially given how few Palestinian women are individually covered in western media sources. Siko (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above from Seeeko. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The BBC and New York Times references show notability. --Racklever (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Alvarez[edit]

Lester Alvarez (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)

Alvarez has not played in any league that playing in it is grounds for notability per the notability guidlines for basketball players listed at the sports notability page. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG although the PBA may not appear in list of WP:NBASKETBALL leagues. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, passes WP:GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Almeida[edit]

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

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

The league that Almeida has played in requires preeminent honors for players to be notable, and he lacks such. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Yet another ridiculous nomination. First sentence, "...who currently plays for Coventry Blaze in the UK's Elite Ice Hockey League". One click on Elite Ice Hockey League: "...it is the highest level of ice hockey competition in the United Kingdom." Quick check of WP:NHOCKEY: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rlendog, I didn't see the first line of NHOCKEY and the link to the list of leagues, leading to a misunderstanding. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is an explicit list of what leagues qualify and the league in question is not on that list. It is PageantUpdater who is ignoring the ridiculously low criteria of notability for sports players not me. This vote should be discounted because it goes against the clearly stated policy which is an explicit list. I looked over the list twice and made sure the league he played in was bot included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He would not meet criterion #1 of WP:NHOCKEY as the UK Elite Ice Hockey League is not regarded as a "top level league" under WP:NHOCKEY/LA. But Almeida was a collegiate All-American, which satisfied criterion #4. Rlendog (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks like the nom should have checked the entire list more carefully. Lepricavark (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY Criteria #4 as a college All-American ice hockey player. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as G4. Previously deleted via AfD and nothing substantial has changed. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Allen[edit]

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

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

The league Allen plays in is not fully professional. I actually nominated this same article for dletion last August, 4 or so other editors supported the deletion, and it was deleted. It was then recreated, so I probably could nominate it for speedy deletion, but I figure this will work too. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Article erroneously claimed Allen had played for Caley Thistle, but this is incorrect and I have now amended it. Number 57 09:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per WP:G4. He is no more notable today than he was six months ago. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Kitagawa[edit]

Erika Kitagawa (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)

Inadequately sourced BLP. Even if the award passed pornbio - which is unlikely given its reputed to be an inhouse award - this is laughably poorly sourced and the GNG trumps SNGs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No non-trivial reliable source coverage and only a minor award win. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PORNBIO. Only RS coverage found in independent searching is a cast listing in video game zine. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total lack of sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely bereft of independent reliable sourcing, no actual claim of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable adult film actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]