< 4 May	6 May >

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) 00:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Aitchison[edit]

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

PROD contensted with the rationale "Willie Aitchison is a professional coach and formerly manager". That may be so, but he hasn't played or managed in a fully professional league and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. What coverage there is of his 17-game managerial career is of the routine variety. Jellyman (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Fife F.C.: I have added various references but they don't add up to much other than acknowledging the subject's brief managerial tenure at New Bayview. Some of the article content could perhaps go into an expanded East_Fife_F.C.#21st_century but at risk of undue emphasis. A Redirect has the merit that if the subject obtains appointments elsewhere in future, the article source can be retrieved and renovated but at the moment there is not enough evidence of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; doesn't merit a redirect. Giant Snowman 15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A redirect to East Fife would be inappropriate, no indication that his contribution there overshadows the remainder of his career. Fenix down (talk) 09:35, 8 May 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) 00:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALCRIT. scope_creep (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not see how this can meet the guidelines for notability for academic journals, nor the WP policy on notability, nor the general notability guidelines.
- The journal website offers a description that is vague and asserts that: "Our journal has indexed by Cabell's Directory, EBSCO Publishing Database & Partnership with International Nobel Peace Prize Recommendation Forum(INPPRF)." Neither Cabell nor EBSCO are selective databases indicative of being recognised within the academic community in line with the requirements of criterion 1. The website of the International Nobel Peace Prize Recommendation Forum declares that the "INPPRF is the only International movement and came into forced to support the Nobel Foundation and it's Committees worldwide as well as all World Peace Movements/International Sports Organizations" and that it was "[I]nspired by the mission of the Nobel Foundation "Nobel Peace Prize", the International Nobel Peace Prize Recommendation Forum was created in 2004 with the practical support by the International Non-Olympic Committee-INOC." This site, located at nobelpeaceforum.org, appears to be a deceptive / fake version of nobelpeaceprizeforum.org that does state "the Forum operates under the auspices of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and is the only such program or academic affiliation outside of Norway."
- The journal is published by Nature Academic Publishing that looks to me to be hoping to pass itself off as the highly notable Nature Publishing Group, just as with the INPPRF and the International Non-Olympic Committee. These similar names are common with predatory journals and predatory publishing. I don't know if this journal is one of these, though the promise that "[publishing an article in IJPEFS will not be required Article Processing Charges"] suggests otherwise. In any, there is good reason for suspicion that something odd / deceptive is going on here.
- I looked at this randomly-selected paper from the journal (Sept 2015, vol. 4, no. 3). This paper should not have passed peer review at a journal of any real quality, not only because of the problematic English, but also becomes of the material that would never be included in a genuine research paper (like tables of ANOVA analyses rather than simple statements of the results) and discussion which mentions prior literature but is nowhere near a genuine analysis of the significance of results in the context of broader understanding. The conclusions and recommendations are also extremely unimpressive.
- A Google Scholar search shows a single paper from this journal with 8 citations, and no other paper I see has more than 4 citations. A Google Books search also finds little, so I think that the evidence for notability in line with criterion 2 is lacking.
- Looking at criterion 3, the journal's first issue was in March 2012, so historical importance seems unlikely.
- Overall: I don't know if this publication is a very minor journal with low standards or something in the predatory / fake genre, but it is doubtful as a reliable source, there is little to no evidence of it being influential in its subject area, and there are few verifiable citations at all, let alone by other reliable sources. It's short history argues against having established historical significance. Thus, it does not meet any of the criteria at WP:JOURNALCRIT, there is little to no evidence of notability, and so it is also ineligible for inclusion under WP:GNG. EdChem (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NJOURNALS. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very similarly titled journal was listed on the standalone-journals subset of Beall's list before that went offline, under a different url, but I'm not sure it's actually the same journal or just parallel evolution. Regardless, we have no evidence of passing WP:NJournals nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. LA2029 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:39, 12 May 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) 00:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kriesha Tiu[edit]

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

Simply not notable.Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our GNG Burley22 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added more info and sources. meets WP:MUSICBIO requirement "9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.199.92 (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep made improvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recklesskid (talk • contribs) 07:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP Editor above is a SPA account of Recklesskid so it is a single keep vote. scope_creep (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now WP:TOOSOON. LA2029 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Not the right place for this discussion, this needs to be a merge / redirect conversation on the appropriate article talk page to ensure history is not lost. Fenix down (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simba Nhivi[edit]

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

There are many sources stating that Simba Sithole and Simba Nhivi are the same person. Simba Sithole even has the same birthday as Nhivi and the same stats. DasGermanMoses (talk) 21:40, 5 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not 100% myself, but when I updated both articles back in June 2016 they both had different birthdays. I noticed you've changed Samba Sithole's DOB recently, any reason/reference? They've also played for different clubs. This (http://www.pressreader.com/zimbabwe/the-sunday-mail-zimbabwe/20160117/281728383520729) from the Sunday Mail in Zimbabwe mentions the namesakes. Simbarashe Sithole and Simba Sithole (footballer, born 1989) could be the same person, though.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Zimbabwean international, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - it is clear that this footballer passes (even exceeds) the WP:NFOOTBALL standards. I think the nominator may have misinterpreted the function of the AFD, if his/her motive was to prove that Simba Sithole and Simba Nhivi are the same person than this should be discussed in a merger discussion on the articles or WikiProject Football's talk page, not on an AFD. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:17, 7 May 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 deletion at author's request. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weimerica[edit]

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

Far-right portmanteau and neologism that has not had significant coverage in the press or in reliable sources. SPLC only is quoting someone using it and does not have substantial coverage of the term. Google only shows the Daily Caller article and random blogs and far-right websites. On top of the notability concerns, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article should be excluded under that policy as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a term introduced in a single opinion column published today. Certainly not notable at the present time. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - makes sense -- this term is used less than I thought Franzboas (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Franzboas, if that is the case, do you mind if I place the CSD G7 tag on the article (or you can do it yourself). TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - TonyBallioni works for me - thanks Franzboas (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 7 May 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. IAR closure. This is clearly NOT an article, and it never will be (it is a blog post). Primefac (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How To Locate Low Priced Guitar Amps[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFORUM / WP:NOTESSAY and is largely non-encyclopedic. GabetheEditor^(talk_cont) 21:12, 5 May 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) 00:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Schumann[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources largely are not reliable or not independent, and those few that might be both don't cover Schumann in any detail. Huon (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was tempted to nominate this when I reviewed it, but I didn't thinking he might be more notable than he appeared, given my lack of familiarity with Russian. Plus the article creator is still active and I wanted to give them a chance to improve the sourcing on the article. However, from the searching I have done I don't see notability, and I just realized the article on this guy on the Russian Wikipedia was deleted as a C5, which seems to be roughly equivalent to an A7 here. If his own language Wikipedia doesn't consider him notable, he probably isn't. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave!Thank you very much for your help in editing the article!I don't know how to work in Wikipedia, please if possible keep this article, patrol, not to delete it, thank You very much!

As sources to save the article I provided a video of the program where talking about Rudolf(It is only in Russian language), a radio program where talking about Rudolf(It is only in Russian language), interview in the magazine(It is only in Russian language) and music links. The article Russian Wikipedia there is mention of Rudolf, the page patrol.^[1] (It is only in Russian language) « но еще более интересен самородок из города Озёрск (Челябинская обл.), Рудольф Шуман, записавший четыре альбома замечательной инструментальной музыки, которой так мало в наших краях. Infobox5 (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ https://yandex.ru/search/?lr=11214&clid=2270454&win=273&msid=1494046295.26943.22881.15594&text=рудольф%20шуман

+ https://www.google.ru/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Rudolf+Schumann%22&num=50&gws_rd=cr&ei=6VUNWayCBcHA6ASZ_5nICA#newwindow=1&q=%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%84+%D1%88%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD

+ http://www.ozersk74.ru/news/glamur/320670.php

+ http://www.ozersk74.ru/news/usernews/344804.php

+ http://gorcom36.ru/content/infozavtrak-20-fevralya-maslenitsa-den-luki-yunona-i-avos-master-i-margarita/

+ http://testicanzoni.mtv.it/testi-Рудольф-Шуман_31703025/testo-Rocky-Mountains-Blues-63751831 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infobox5 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ http://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/209877-den-rozhdenija-20-fevralja-u-kakih-velikih-izvestnyh-ljudej-i-znamenitostej.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infobox5 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ http://www.notomania.ru/kompozitor.php?n=376 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infobox5 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ http://music-book.jp/music/Artist/924204/Music/aaa6nf4z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infobox5 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ https://www.telemark-it.ru/portfolio/razrabotka-servisa-internet-radio/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infobox5 (talk •

Multiple keep !votes are unnecessary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep! I wish the article was saved and not deleted!I am grateful to You for helping with the article!Infobox5 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] leave! Would it be possible to leave the article and not to delete?Infobox5 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] keep! I think I need to keep the page!Infobox5 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] keep! I think you need to save the page source and the link is in the article and in the discussion!Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infobox5 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple keep !votes are unnecessary

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

Keep!

I wish the article was saved and not deleted!I am grateful to You for helping with the article!Infobox5 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

leave!

Would it be possible to leave the article and not to delete?Infobox5 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep!

I think I need to keep the page!Infobox5 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep!

I think you need to save the page source and the link is in the article and in the discussion!Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infobox5 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The very small number of news articles I found with an online search all mentioned other people with a similar name, none mentioned this Rudolf Schumann. Considering that all the more notable Rudolf Schumanns in the world are not notable enough for WP articles, this one certainly is not notable. This is especially true when people who can efficiently research in his own language (i.e., Russian Wikipedians) found him to be not notable. It's a difficult one because sources will be in a different alphabet, but the action of the Russian WP makes it clear. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

Delete For all the reasons above, and the promotional nature of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 11 May 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) 00:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Freimund[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG can't find any in depth coverage in reliable sources none of the references in the article mention him either. Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was deleted earlier this evening as a speedy delete A7 by RickinBaltimore and could probably be speedied again and salted. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT Non-notable local sportscaster. Scr★pIron^IV 15:00, 12 May 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. If there really are only two independent sources, that's not sufficient to establish notability, so no consensus to keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle.com[edit]

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

As it is right now, this page will probably fail WP:GNG. Besides, there's hardly any reliable coverage about the website I can find on the web. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam with no indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for minor tech startups. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see the independent secondary WP:RS? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has two independent sources--one is NYT. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per david Dlohcierekim 04:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:38, 5 May 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 Cocktail. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classic cocktail[edit]

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

No sources and little content. Maybe merge to Cocktail, but with no source I don't see the point. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cocktail as a plausible search term. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cocktail - Agreed, it would be a viable search term. - Pmedema (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - if a source for "classic cocktail" as a term for drinks from that period can be found we might want to add in that titbit, otherwise everything is well covered there. Artw (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above - Classic cocktail is a vague term. Generally, in bar-tending circles, it refers to a cocktail with a simple formula well laid out in The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks wikipedia page. Presently, the term has expanded to incorporate modern 'classics' like a Cosmopolitan or Long Island Iced Tea. Definitely agree with redirecting to Cocktail. --GarrettK43087 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? Looks like we're headed for a redirect, and I'd like to put something at the target article, but right now this article is completely unsourced. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Cocktail as a plausible search term. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? Looks like we're headed for a redirect, and I'd like to put something at the target article, but right now this article is completely unsourced. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#KEEP #3 and WP:R#DELETE #8. No source is needed, and you don't have to put anything in the target. That would be a merge with redirect, not a redirect. For a redirect, all we need is that someone might plausibly search for "classic cocktail". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my comment ended up at the wrong place. I have moved it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 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 draftify. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raluca Răducanu[edit]

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

Seams like non-wp:notable person. I can't locate reliable sources with significant coverage. There are other people with the same name, so it's a bit hard to search for her. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: per nom. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Links are to the subject's own website, what appears to be a teacher's blog, and two YouTube videos of the subject. The article may also have a WP:COI issue, as well. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: It is Exaggerated insinuation. To say, in ones eyes, that someone is not so important still, it is ok, but to say advertising for oneself is too much, there are enough poster, wish shows her work Lulanep 17:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)</[reply]
- Draftify: Worth giving the editor a shot at satisfying GNG before removing. It currently is not notable but perhaps there is something out there that establishes that fact. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: This article was created in article space on May 5, 2017, and sent to AfD less than 7 hours later by Vanjagenije. Article creator Lulanep then moved it to Draft space about 90 minutes later. Jip Orlando's above delete vote was added to the AfD before the moved to draft space. CAPTAIN RAJU then converted the AfD to an MfD. So, I think it is important to ask Vanjagenije and Jip whether their views are unchanged for this one-day-old article now in draft space. It is a BLP but I see nothing in the content that is problematic from a policy perspective. The content is unreferenced but asserts reasons to think there could be notability as she has recordings as a musician and has received awards. I think deleting it from draft space so soon would be WP:BITEy, and the article should be left for Lulanep to further develop, as that is the purpose of draft space. It was not ready for article space, but draftifying has addressed that problem. EdChem (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify: Comment added after (edit conflict) with below comment from GeoffreyT2000, who has moved the article back to article space and turned this back into an AfD. I believe draftifying is the appropriate outcome, and so, I am changing my vote from keep to draftify. Geoffrey, keeping a non-ready draft in article space for the length of the AfD and having it visible to search engines (drafts are noindexed automatically) strikes me as absurd, especially when draftifying is a valid and sensible outcome and it was moved by the article creator who is clearly an inexperienced Wikipedia editor. EdChem (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it is appropriate to move to draft during AfD, so I have moved the draft back to the article namespace and MfD back to AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify:I think, if no one is against, I would prefer to move it again as a draft. She may not seem for everybody so important still now, but I think, there are more possibilities. In my eyes, she has reached more things than others, who have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulanep (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:46, 7 May 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) 00:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus (archangel)[edit]

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

"Jesus (archangel)" lacks notability. The only source listed on the page is a single book by one Richard Carrier, and I was unable to find any further sources. Additionally I believe this falls under "Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources" from the page on "WP:V". Additionally, it may produce the illusion that the fringe Christ myth theory is more widely accepted than it is.2601:1C0:CD01:74EE:A8AD:D914:CC5B:3DA4 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC) ansh 666 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. No opinion on the merits. ansh 666 19:15, 5 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The book is peer reviewed and published by an academic publisher.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFRINGE. Richard Carrier is one of the best known proponents of the Christ myth theory, the view that Jesus did not exist. AFAICT this article represents part of his views on the subject, as a possible explanation of where the idea of Jesus came from if Jesus was not a real historical person. The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and has very, very little support in mainstream academic scholarship on the subject, so our policies and guidelines concerning fringe theories apply. Fringe theories (or aspects of them) only deserve independent articles they have been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers (WP:NFRINGE). That is certainly going to require more sources than just Richard Carrier. Furthermore, per WP:UNDUE the article would have to make it clear that it is discussing a fringe theory with little mainstream acceptance, which this one doesn't. Hut 8.5 20:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore the topic is actually mentioned at Christ_myth_theory#Judeo-Greco-Roman_background_and_similarities. Covering it in context like that is better because it's clear the idea is part of a fringe theory. Hut 8.5 10:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFRINGE. If there were anything to this, the article should have cited additional sources.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely falls into the fringe area because one source is not "extensive coverage". - Pmedema (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There would be an article in this space that would meet notability requirements regarding Christ as angel/Jesus as angel/angel christology/Christos Angelos/Jesus as incarnation of the archangel Michael, xref Christology/Christophany, though I don't believe it's this article in its current form or name - its starting from the wrong end. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFRINGE, one might really say "lunatic fringe", it is sourced to Richard Carrier, who does not hold an academic position, has zero academic credibility and is almost solely known for pushing the extreme fringe idea that Jesus never existed.Smeat75 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every mainstream study which has examined the methods for Jesus historicity has concluded they are fallacious. Jesus historicity is not based on anything.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable fringe theory. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is similar in scope to the Yahweh article i.e. the accounting of and scholarly analysis of a fairytale. The addition of more mainstream content obviates some of the previous objections. IMO future objections should note why per Cf. Yahweh. - 74.138.110.32 (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think the additions really help. Most of it is either original research to make Carrier's beliefs look more reasonable/mainstream or background material with little direct relevance to the topic. Carrier's work is still cited for the important conclusions and is presented as mainstream scholarship. I'm sure it is possible to write an encyclopedic article on the topic along the lines suggested by Hydronium Hydroxide above, but it should not be starting from the standpoint of Jesus mythicism. Hut 8.5 20:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete on common sense grounds. Ifnord (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFRINGE as argued above. St Anselm (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above arguments. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:41, 12 May 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) 00:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political Scandals that were exploited in American Media History[edit]

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

written as essay.. looks like college project just copy pasted... maybe copy write content... India1277 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly falls under WP:NOTESSAY. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. According to the creator's contribs, this was written for a class. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given. Is there not a way to speedy it? Never been much of a deletionist and not sure what the form is. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is original research. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a speedy way to delete this type of article. The article admits that it is an essay. - Pmedema (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I was thinking to rename this, but with AFD going I won't. I think there could be an article in media coverage of American political scandals. But the current title is a point of view pushing title. The contents is an essay, trying to prove a point to an American reader. It contains plenty of personal opinion and persuasion. So there is nothing in the content worth preserving. I don't think we can speedy delete this as advertising. But and AFD delete seems sure. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't an encyclopedia article, and can't be turned into one. Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:22, 12 May 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) 00:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lee Ruggles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

highly promotional bio with no usable sources. Was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Lee Ruggles in 2010, and then restored by an admin, but it's no better. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of adding references, the entire article was vandalized by Lancer00 over several days, who is now suggesting deletion. If you feel notability is in question, so be it. but I don't need to be jerked around by an anonymous user - Frank Lee Ruggles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.203.238 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I can't see where it was 'restored by an admin.' It's been de-speedied, and at least one edit was restored, but it doesn't come from DRV or anything like that, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. I declined the G4 speedy deletion as the content had been changed from what it was at the time of the prior deletion, but the content was similar to the previous versions so I restored the history to supply attribution and avoid copyright concerns; that was the only issue with the page I addressed. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion and restoration here.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I can't speak to his general notability but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in his military background as presented that warrants retention. Recommend this AfD be removed from the military list.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability. That's not the case here, so he is not within the scope of the Military History Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT It is a highly promotional autobiography by Ruggles himself as seen by the edit just after the nominator's....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- has all the trappings of a a promotional autobiography: "Photographer, Musician, Author, TV Personality, Former US Army Paratrooper and former Eminent Photographer" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtra Rishi[edit]

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

I don't even know what to make of this. A supporter of the Prime Minister of India applies a certain superlative to him; how is that superlative worthy of a standalone article? Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New word Rashtra Rishi is new word in Indian dictionary, and Prime Minister of India received this honor. please visit the link and search on google then you will find this is big news for India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialtags (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:Notability. The article is apparently intended to treat the "new word", with its application to Narendra Modi offered as an example and source of notability. But notability cannot be inherited from people to whom the title is awarded. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 7 May 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 (✉) 21:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Wray[edit]

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

I also considered starting this article, but concluded that this screenwriter does not meet WP:GNG: there is too little coverage of her as a person, only lots of passing mentions that she wrote this series or the other. Sandstein 15:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable article created by an editor who deems that everything Game of Thrones-related must have an article or strong mention, based on previous "fanboy" reasonings in similar discussions. -- Alex^TW 15:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She does meet WP:GNG, as you can see that their are plenty of coverage of her and not to mention that she has been nominated and won major awards. - AffeL (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has three sentences under her career, two sections in total, and she won one award. -- Alex^TW 16:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has won one major award and has been nominated for more, as you can see. More text are being added. The article just got created and is being improved. - AffeL (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. She won one and was nominated for one. A massive change, I'm sure. If you were planning on improving it, you should have done so in the draft namespace. -- Alex^TW 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has won one major award and has been nominated for many others, also she has writen for many popular shows and has recived high coverage from all newsites and other pages. What more does an article need for notability. - AffeL (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only won a Writers Guild of America Award, for sakes. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE it doesn't seem to say that achieving one award automatically gives notability. Could this fall a little bit into the WP:TOSOON category? - Pmedema (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like awards are the only thing that gives notability. As you can see, she has high coverage from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety (magazine), Deadline.com and so on. She has also written for some highly rated shows. How is that not notability? - AffeL (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than the editor who's opposing it only because the article is related to Game of Thrones, as he does and has done for all such articles, is there opposition to moving it to the draft namespace? -- Alex^TW 09:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose to move this to draft, as this is a perfectly fine article, well sourced and everthing. Wikipedia is about getting information. Not hiding information for the users. Also this has nothing to do with Game of Thrones, seeing that you are the only one who has mention that show in this discussion. It is quite clear that you have something against the highest rated show of all time. By opposing everything related to the show. - AffeL (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, "highest rated show of all time". As I said, fanboy tendancies. -- Alex^TW 09:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a fact, you can read all about it at: Game of Thrones. - AffeL (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your supporting arguments to facts, if you please, not your personal opinions of the series. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 10:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was a personal opinion. - AffeL (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award and profiles in Fortune show GNG, has a good body of work as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think her work is probably good enough to suggest her notability, and the Writers Guild award cements it. The GoT arguments are almost irrelevant; the show is merely "in development" along with three other series. I think it is highly unlikely that HBO will order all four. It is fine for that information to be included in the article (indeed it should), but I don't think it really makes a difference to her notability at this moment in time (an ordered, or definitely premiered GoT spin-off series is a different matter). Cindlevet (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree to keep. Well sourced, and Wray is well-known in her profession. JuggrnautTN (talk) 00:42, 9 May 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 speedily deleted by MelanieN per CSD G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksnipe Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NCORP. The only "artist" that is linked in the page is actually a link to a Polish village. The one award comes from an awards ceremony that I'e never heard of. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new SPA that recreated the article may be another sock account of a banned editor, who was cited in the speedy deletion at Afd last year. I've reported it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Darcruz_iyari. If re-deleted, I wonder if salting might not be advisable. Some but not all of the other versions of this article title have been salted. There's at least four versions of the title by my count. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy-deleted the article per G4) and salted it. I also indeffed the sock. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 7 May 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) 00:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blu Mankuma[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician and actor, which just lists a boatload of acting roles (virtually all as supporting or guest characters, at that) and references them nowhere but his IMDb profile. As always, an actor does not get a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed, or even just because they're verified by IMDb -- even on the IMDb profile, the series where he appeared often enough to be called a "regular" are still credited as "guest voices" or "additional voices" rather than as named characters. Rather, to pass NACTOR, at least some of the roles have to be supported by reliable source coverage about his performances in the roles -- but there's no indication whatsoever that any such coverage is available here. There's simply nothing here that's strong enough to earn him a presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NACTOR & basic GNG.FITINDIA (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FitIndia. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no citation sources and is failing GNG. 207.102.255.106 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 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. This is a difficult and close call, but the paucity of material in the article and the absence of additional sources from which to expand it further, the majority of participants supporting deletion dovetails with the lack of harm to the encyclopedia to come from this removal. A reasonable alternative might be to create an article on author Peter A. Levine and redirect there (such an article appears to have been attempted before and deleted for unambiguous advertising or promotion, but it may be possible to write a non-promotional piece on the subject). bd2412 T 00:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waking the Tiger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: It seems the three references provided are all independent reviews, which unless I'm missing something, would pass criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are not in reliable sources (and the one that arguably is, is not of this book but another one). Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria says (emphasis mine) "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." and note 5 says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." I believe these 4 reviews meet this test and that one of them is published by the British Psychological Society, removes any doubt in my mind. Toddst1 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to take in the gloss on "non-trivial". A site like cheap-health-revolution.com ("The hidden secrets of home-based natural health") does not count. And the "review" apparently published by the British Psychological Society is not of this book. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down on the BPS review. It's there. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: It isn't on that page that I can see. Perhaps I'm missing it: could you copy the opening words of the review so I can search for it as a sanity check? There only appears to be a review of another Levine book, and the word "Tiger" appears twice on the page, as an oblique reference to this earlier work. And you agree the other sources were junk I take it Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: Kudos to your persistence on this. Yes, the first paragraph of that review is all about this book, but the review is of the author's later book. I've struck my Keep.Toddst1 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient reviews, and plethorae of other mentions in news items in connection with the author indicate notability. That is, if he's quoted and referenced as "author of Waking the Tiger" that's sufficient evidence of notability for me. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: But there are no decent reviews are there? What did you have in mind? Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient reviews. The reason I believe this should be here is it introduces a powerful method of curing trauma based on nature or animal psychology. This would be useful for example, for war veterans who can't focus on a normal life,etc.--Jondel (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jondel: But there are no decent reviews are there? What did you have in mind? Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you protect Wikipedia from cyber snake oil Alex. Although the focus was on . "In an Unspoken Voice: How the Body Releases Trauma and Restores Goodness " one paragraph is devoted to Waking the Tiger. Other source have been added since.--Jondel (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it wasn't really right to add the reference as a book review of Waking the Tiger. As I have said a few times, there appear to be no reputable reviews of this book: hence it is not notable enough for us. This is why there is an AfD. If anyone can produce two decent reviews (actual reviews, of this book, in a respectable publication) I will change my mind in an instant! Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From,time.com at #12 or the seventh paragraph from The Tribune? These guys can't be wrong.--Jondel (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of sentences here or there does not constitute a book review. A book review is like what you linked from the British Psychological Society (only that was for another book). Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Two of the three sources were not MEDRS and failed WP:FRIND. There is one decent source. One. There is obvious promotional pressure on this article, per the !vote above by the creator of this page. diff Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficiently notable; I've looked for sources but was only able to find promo blurbs and interviews with the author. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Somatic experiencing. Does not stand as a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NBOOK #1; that the author is mentioned as "the author of X" doesn't help get it over that bar. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Marzillier, John (May 2011). "Book reviews". British Psychological Society. Archived from the original on 2017-05-17. Retrieved 2017-05-17.
  The article notes:
  The psychologist Peter Levine is a major figure in the trauma field. His earlier book, Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma (North Atlantic Books, 1997), aimed at a general readership, was very successful. In it he promoted the idea that the way to help those affected by trauma was not through talking but through action. Somatic Experiencing, as he has calls it, combines body awareness work with a sensitive assessment of the psychological causes of trauma. It is not enough, and in fact it may make people worse, to ask people to relive traumas purely verbally. The body needs to be involved so that physical actions that were inhibited are re-enacted in therapy and latent energy can be discharged.
2. Newton, Ruth P. (March–April 1998). "Book Reviews: Waking the Tiger, Healing Trauma". Psychosomatic Medicine. 60 (2): 233. Retrieved 2017-05-17.
  The article notes:
  For me, the most interesting part of the book is its neurobehavioral approach to trauma, implicating the survival routines in the protoreptilian brain. The case material is also interesting as one can see how he uses his theory to guide his clinical work; however, the theory and case material are entangled by a self-help format that weakens his presentation and jeopardizes the overall organization of the book. I found it necessary to ignore the self-help aspects of the book to appreciate this interesting hypothesis and useful application, and I believe the book is more appropriately used by professionals rather than directly by patients or clients.
3. Eckl, Cheryl (2011-08-27). "Heal the Trauma, Then the Grief". Psychology Today. Archived from the original on 2017-05-17. Retrieved 2017-05-17.
  The article notes:
  As trauma expert Peter A. Levine demonstrates in his seminal book, Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma (North Atlantic Books, 1997), we can learn much about trauma from observing animals in the wild. This is because we are a lot like them.
  This is a passing mention but it notes the book is "seminal".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Waking the Tiger to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been around since 2004 and there's literally one review of it listed in the References section. It seems highly unlikely, after 13 years have passed, that more reliable secondary sources are going to appear and establish notability. Passing mentions don't lift the notability level at all. I can't believe this article has survived this long. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:21, 17 May 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) 00:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Aslam[edit]

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

The records website RecordSetter.com lacks credibility since there is no oversight or check of the records submitted to it - see this discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. It follows that a person whose only claim to notability is that he has a large number of records listed on that website does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I have removed some puffery and unsubstantiated claims, leaving a bare-bones version of the article - the version before my edit can be seen here. This was a contested PROD a few months ago. bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete for lacking substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. The only listed source doesn't support the claims made in the article. Mduvekot (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources that support notability sufficient to surpass WP:GNG. Searches under news, books, and general Internet reveal no links to independent, reliable sources. Searches to verify setting a Guinness record failed to find anything reliable either. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 12 May 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. SpinningSpark 18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdeep Pandher[edit]

(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)

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer and bhangra dancer, without the depth or breadth of coverage needed to properly support notability. While there are reliable sources being cited here, they are virtually all in the context of a single viral YouTube video, which just makes him a WP:BLP1E as things stand today — there's no real evidence of notability shown here for his writing apart from the simple fact that it exists. And while the advertorialized viral video spin is a recent rewrite of an older article that was much more (but not perfectly) neutral and concentrated on his writing, it didn't properly demonstrate notability as a writer either, amounting to "he exists" and parking that on a single source — so the article would not become keepable just by reverting the PR bumf either. I'm also bundling the newly created article about his book, which makes no claim of notability at all except existing and cites no sources whatsoever — technically that article's actually outright speediable, but I felt it better to keep it attached to this discussion. As always, neither writers nor books are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; certain specific standards of notability have to be attained, and certain specific standards of reliable source coverage have to support them, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Note by Mark Hilton): This article is about the real person Gurdeep Pandher and his works, I am not sure why CAPTAIN RAJU is recommending it for deletion! I am recommending to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHilton (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is not a matter of "this person exists and therefore must automatically have an article" — a person has to have achieved something that passes a Wikipedia notability criterion, such as winning a notable literary award for his writing, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. It is not something that everybody is entitled to just for existing. For one thing, your comment seems to imply that you think somebody said he wasn't a real person — but nobody said that in the first place, and "is a real person" is not, in and of itself, automatically grounds for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Note by Mark Hilton): This person is an author of two books. One of them is 3 times sold out. And he is bhangra artist, poet and singer. CBC News, BBC, USA Today, etc. covered him. He has viral videos. Nearly half-million people follow him on social media. I am not sure what else needs to be done to mark someone a notable person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHilton (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage that exists in more than just the context of a single event, for starters. No number of followers on social media constitutes a notability freebie in the absence of passing an actual notability criterion, for one thing — and even if he actually passed a notability criterion, articles on Wikipedia must be written neutrally and encyclopedically, and no topic is ever entitled to keep an article that tips over as far into advertorial public relations bumf as you've turned this into. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Note by Mark Hilton): Did you read he is also an author of a 3-reprints? Social media is an added thing. Yes, this article was written in way to polish it in future. A simple google search will reveal his notably. This is not a public relations bumf which you are unnecessarily describing without any logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHilton (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You get a couple of brownie points for toning the advertorialism down since this discussion was initiated, but "advertorial bumf" is a completely accurate and correct assessment of what the writing tone was at the time. And again: people do not get Wikipedia articles just because they got a blip of media coverage in the context of a single event — they get Wikipedia articles if the coverage sustains significantly beyond a blip of publicity for a single event. And writers don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just for the fact of having written books, either — they get Wikipedia articles when, for example, they have won or been nominated for a major literary award for one or more of their books.

And, for the record, considering that you have never once made a single edit to Wikipedia that wasn't directly related to Gurdeep Pandher, I strongly suspect some form of direct conflict of interest — are you a public relations agent whom Pandher paid to tart up the article with advertorial content about his YouTube videos? Because whether you are or not, that's what you're coming across as right now. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Note by Mark Hilton): The way you are using your language now, you seems like a racist jerk to me. Aren't you? Now you are accusing me of his public relations agent. Mind your language and be respectful! You are going too far and I suspect your credibility. I am going to write to Wikipedia on your language you are using here. His media coverage is not about a single event. He is getting the sustainable media coverage since 2004. Some people like you who are just jealous of others' achievements and who cannot do anything themselves, waste their lifetime finding faults in other people's works. You are being way too much negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHilton (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, I've said nothing remotely "racist" or "disrespectful" at any point in this discussion, I've used no remotely "inappropriate" language whatsoever, and I frankly don't give a flying fig what you think of my credibility — if we took this to WP:ANI for a credibility contest, there's no doubt in my mind that I'd win. As well, please note that if you don't drop the ad hominem attacks on me, you're going to be at serious risk of being editblocked for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. HTH, HAND. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has two (or three, depending on whether you consider each book separately) claims to notability; he is the author of two books, and a video he posted received more than 300,000 views. His videos have received coverage in the media, but his books have not garnered any critical attention. He is not notable as a poet. As for the videos, a video going viral (if that is even the right word in this case) is not something we would have an article about, so there is not even the question of whether the subject should be covered independent of the event, or redirected to the article about the event. Unsourced claims like "From BC to Ontario, he has been to almost every city and town, plus majority of villages." should not exist in a BLP. If all such statements were culled from the article, not much would remain. Mduvekot (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep an absolutely nauseating advertorial (can someone please delete all the images of this guy meeting X, Y and Z?), but it does appear to have numerous sources. GNG might be met, by virtue of the sheer force of persistent attention seeking and promotion producing weak coverage.104.163.151.78 (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Mduvekot. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 03:56, 9 May 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) 00:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Grommen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was the the article Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays for an international soccer team that is of great notabolity. (sic) However, he has not played for his country's national team or in a fully pro league, nor has he received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

angeljessie97 Almost every other player in that team has a wiki page, they're at the same level as him, why should he not have his own page as the rest of them do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeljessie97 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument for keeping an article. That being said, the reason the others aren't up for deletion is that they have all played for the Filipino national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, he has played in the fully professional Philippines Football League today against Kaya FC. I requested the inclusion of the PFL in the list at WP:FPL and afaik, there is consensus in a previous discussion that the league will undoubtedly be fully pro but the only reason for the league's non-inclusion at that time was the games was yet to be played then.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - as per Hariboneagle927's comment I too believe that the Philippines Football League today is professional, however as well I believe it would be best if the article passed WP:NFOOTY first. This may simply qualify as WP:TOOSOON and if deleted can be restarted once the PFL is recognized as fully professional on Wikipedia or that the subject makes his debut for the national team. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Currently there is not consensus that this league is fully professional. Clear steps have been taken by the league to increase the level of professionalism iwthin the league, but it is not clear whether this is sufficient to indicate full professionalism. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 17:41, 8 May 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 AfD withdrawn by proposer. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 02:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fattah Amin[edit]

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

This page is a google translated version of the Malaysian Wiki page of the same name: https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fattah_Amin GabetheEditor^(talk_cont) 13:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and is up for deletion because....? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I have no idea. I was tired when I made this decision, I suppose I wasn't thinking straight. GabetheEditor^(talk_cont) 01:53, 6 May 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) 00:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Aquinas House[edit]

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

1. it is part of school house system---its not that notable 2. article don't have any citation... i even visited school website they dont have any mention of it 3. a. Dominating in the 2015 End-of-Year CLS Picnic. b. Winning the 2016 house video contest these are not notable achivement 4. St. Thomas Aquinas was chosen as it's namesake don't confuse this with http://www.traditionalcanons.org/who-we-are/ which is big notable religions house 5. Aquinas House has been located in room 301 (wow!!!) India1277 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of 14 houses at this school. I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources - in fact I can find no mention of it at all. It's unreferenced and contains things like "Aquinas House is factually the superior house of Covington Latin School" which makes me think it's a page created by students within the House. In short, nothing to indicate notability. Neiltonks (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Covington Latin School per WP:ATD-R. No notability as far as I can tell but potential search term. Regards So Why 18:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason to suspect that this is the most significant Thomas Aquinas House in the world or that people who typed this in would be looking for Covington Latin School. Aquinas House is actually a pretty common name for Catholic campus ministries or their facilities in North America (especially if the CCM was founded in the pre-Newman Centre era). I also suspect their are a fair amount of Aquinas Houses elsewhere too in the form of rectories, parish halls, etc. Basically, this is one of the most significant saints in Western Christianity, revered by Catholics and respected by Protestants. The odds of people searching for a school in Kentucky when they type in this search term are pretty low, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 8 May 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) 00:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SparkChess[edit]

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

Not seeing evidence this passes WP:GNG (either in the article or elsewhere). Article material is almost entirely unsourced or primary sourced. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could only find some trivial mentions, and the ones in the article are either not independent or there is no in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.--Rogerx2 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search for 'chess' on Google lists SparkChess in 3rd-4th place, so it's not obscure. Shouldn't it be preferable to improve the page rather than delete? Gaspyy (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaspyy: Improving is generally the best way to go, to be sure. :) but the issue isn't the quality of the article, but the subject itself. "Notability" is a measure of significance to justify having an article, but it's based on bigger Wikipedia principles like WP:V and WP:NPOV. Basically, if something hasn't received significant coverage by reliable sources, there's no way to (a) justify including it in an encyclopedia that's based exclusively on preexisting sources, or (b) write an article about it that isn't either a short stub or excessively promotional. Google hits can be an indication of notability, but doesn't stand in for actual sources. If you could link some sources (books, journals, magazines, high-quality websites, newspapers, etc.) that have no connection to SparkChess and which provide in-depth coverage of it, that's what would swing this discussion towards keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A7 (lack of notability) . Materialscientist (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akmalkhantiger[edit]

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

Cant find any sources to support notability, Obviously written by close associate or the person himself. Only reference provided in the article leads to a university homepage, Fails WP:NPOL. Razer^{Text me} 12:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin Drugă[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not seem to have ever played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. There is no evidence he satisfies WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played in Liga 1 which is the most important football division in Romania and also a professional one. The deletion has no real argument. Rhinen

@Rhinen:, could you please indicate when and in which club he played in Liga 1?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Sure, Ceahlaul Piatra Neamt, in 2012-2013 season against Viitorul and Petrolul and another 4 matches in 2011-2012 season, LII is the sign for both Liga I and Liga II on soccerway, I don't know why. (Rhinen)

Great, thanks for clarifications, will withdraw it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 6 May 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) 00:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Tuinov[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person doesn't meet additional or basic criteria (so far). Timofei Vatolin (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers nor WP:GNG. The coverage I can find for him is almost all routine sports reporting with, at best, a passing mention. Success in amateur kickboxing events is specially mentioned at WP:NKICK as insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 15:41, 6 May 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) 00:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DDRUK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article failed 3 AfDs, the most recent one over 5 years ago.

The site is now completely defunct. I see no evidence it ever was notable. The article was mostly self-promotional in nature, and several of the references are to marketing campaigns run by the website.

Delete - no assertion of notability independent of itself, forum discussions or non-notable blogs. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that it is notable in the encyclopedic sense. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:00, 7 May 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. SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Schools Society[edit]

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

Notability and lack of sources. Cannot identify unbiased external sources to establish notability of the platform. Key statements are therefore unsourced. Also some indication of promotional tendency. Jake Brockman (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For whatever reason this page has been on my watchlist for over a year and I've seen no real improvement over that time. Fails WP:GNG and is (in my opinion) an example of WP:SOAP. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 15:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I did a quick search and I can't find unaffiliated sources. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 16:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:17, 7 May 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. SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Voice[edit]

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

No sources found for this political website. Tagged for notability since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently there was a publication with the same name, but the web site fails WP:WEBCRIT.- Mr X 17:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails simplest of WP standards for notability, lacks independent RS. Cllgbksr (talk) 07:04, 5 May 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. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sunsoft video games[edit]

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

Article is just a mirror of information from one source. Relevant policy: WP:NOTMIRROR Yashovardhan (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You seem to have misunderstood the cited policy. WP:NOTMIRROR has to do with using Wikipedia as a repository for files from other websites. It does not say that we can't maintain a list of a publisher's games just because a list of their games has been published elsewhere. Indeed, the existence of this information in external sources is crucial to meeting WP: Verifiability requirements.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable and easily verifiable by the numerous list entries that contain articles and references to the Sunsoft name. Ajf773 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:01, 5 May 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. postdlf (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of 6th-century Muslim history[edit]

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

This is anachronistic, Muslim history didn't start any earlier than around 610 (well in the 7th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - specious rationale. The timeline gives the births of various ancestors etc of Muhammad, and the events of the first 30 years of his life. Perfectly reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not history of Muhammad but Muslim history. Muhammad hasn't done anything Islam-related in the first 30 years of his life. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Any work of "Muslim history" covering the whole period will begin with the late 6th century. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by the nominator, this is a history of Muhammad before he began preaching Submission. I quote the History of Islam article: first the intro, and then its "Islamic origins" section:
Despite concerns about reliability of early sources, most historians believe that Islam originated in Mecca and Medina at the start of the 7th century.
According to tradition, the Islamic prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca around the year 570. His family belonged to the Quraysh. When he was about forty years old, he began receiving what Muslims consider to be divine revelations delivered through the angel Gabriel, which would later form the Quran, enjoining him to proclaim a strict monotheistic faith, warn his compatriots of the impending Judgement Day, and castigate social injustices of his city.
Works of Muslim history do not begin with the late sixth century except to provide background information: if you're writing from the Muslim point of view, you'll begin your account of Muslim history at Creation, and if you're not, you'll begin your account of Muslim history (as opposed to background information) in the early seventh century. There's no point in moving this content to the Muhammad article, since it's just a few bullets of information that's already much better expressed in his biography. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle, faddle! I should have said "History of Islam", but I forgot how many pedants are around. As you recognize it is necessary to admit twice, any bla bla work will include the 6th century, precisely to give background information. In the same way, the Timeline of World War I begins before the actual war, as any reader would expect. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the course you want to take, I'll say delete as basically redundant to Muhammad in Mecca without being a good redirect there. Once again, none of these items are specifically Islamic, and we already have the background information elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We always have the information in "Timelines" elsewhere, and so we should. But many people like the format and use them. If you feel like that, try nominating Timeline of 7th-century Muslim history and see how that goes. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a subpage of Timeline of Islamic history created by the separating of that page by century. It was a reasonable thing to do then (2004) and still looks reasonable to me. There seems also to be a content dispute regarding the inclusion of events before the birth of Muhammad or before the start of his preaching. If this article is not deleted, that dispute could be continued on the talk page, but my opinion is that these events could be included. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subpage of all other timelines in other centuries, this is the only one nominated for deletion. Furthermore I don't see any real reason to delete it (as well as keep the others). It just needs a bit more work. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole thing is an oxymoron. It might be renamed to Timeline of life of Mohammed, but I expect that we have something better on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or delete the whole timeline). The only reason its not part of Timeline of Islamic history is that the long article was split in small pieces because people don't like hugh articles. (btw. it looks like the none of them have any sources) Christian75 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the timeline used the Arabic calendar, having a single page for events in years BH would not be controversial. I see no reason to delete this article simply because the time divisions used are not ideal. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There is something rather off about deciding the validity of an article about the history of Islam based solely on how it fits with a calendar based on the birth of Jesus Christ! Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is completely unrelated to calendars, I really don't understand where this comes from. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll explain. The title "Timeline of 6th-century Muslim history" uses the usual calendar, based on Christianity. If the whole timeline set used the Islamic calendar, this would be something like "Timeline of pre-Hegira Muslim history", to which the same objections could not be made. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. The nomination is to delete an Islam article when Islam didn't exist yet. That applies in any calendar setting. There isn't any 1st-century BC Christianity either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There could be if the Christian calendar started (say) with the baptism or death of Jesus rather than his birth. But that's not really the point. If you don't get it you don't get it I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prehistory is history. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's only because the term "prehistory" emerged in the meaning of history before written sources were available. We don't have a problem like that in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 7 May 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 to delete. bd2412 T 00:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dice Ailes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Being signed to a major record label in his native country doesn't equate to notability. The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The music chart cited in the article isn't a reliable chart. Winning a low-level award at The Headies isn't enough to justify a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news link above shows multiple RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Walter Görlitz: None of the webpages in the news link discusses the subject or his musical releases in detail. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two points: 1) You responded within 40 minutes of my !vote and yet you make the absolute statement that "none of the [548] webpages in the news link". So you looked at them all? Assuming that you actually saw my !vote immediately after I hits save, that would mean you reviewed about 14 pages a minute. That's impressive. Now, I assume you could be using hyperbole, or you actually checked them all WP:BEFORE you nominated the article. OK. 2) It's is easy to refute with a single case: http://pulse.ng/buzz/dice-ailes-will-be-a-star-with-miracle-id6033688.html, but there were at least two others that were not fan fawning. My decision to claim it should be kept remains unchanged based on the sheer volume of stories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To reiterate, the sources in the link do not discuss the subject or his musical releases in detail. Majority of them are mere announcements of his releases. Can you create stand-alone articles about each of those singles in the news link? The answer to that question is no. Stop making assumptions about what I reviewed or didn't review. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough third party news links in the article to make it noteworthy.TH1980 (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No in-depth coverage in reliable press / sources.Celestina007 (talk) 00:39, 28, April 2017 (UTC)
Comment Just a thought: I'm not weighing in on the keep-vs.-delete question. But if the consensus is Delete, how about merging/redirecting it to Chocolate City Music - the name of his label - instead? Assuming that connection is verified, of course. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I don't think you read this article or made research. I want to point out 2 fact that make's an article notable on Wikipedia. 1.) You said it's fail's WP:MUSICBIO, but you so wrong, the article meets criteria 1, 8:The Headies^[1], 10:Felabration^[2], 11:How do you check song's which has been placed on rotation on Major radio?, The answer is by checking the radio's official webpage or "PlayData Chart" because that chart is been put together by major radio stations in Lagos only and it's based on rotation.^[3] and 12^[4]. 2.) You said it's fail's WP:GNG, but you also wrong. You might have seen for yourself now it's also pass WP:GNG. I got nothing more to contribute to this, it's clear it meet's WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.--Obari2Kay (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Mayorkun, Terry Apala or Dice Ailes: Who will win the Headies 2016 Rookie of the Year award?". Nigerian Entertainment Today. 19 December 2016. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
^ Helen, Ajomole. "Check out artiste lined up to celebrate late Fela Kuti in 2016 (photos)". Naij. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
^ Solanke, Abiola. "Tekno"s "Pana" is the hottest song on Playdata Radio Chart". Pulse. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
^ "Dice Ailes On The Drive Time Show With Gbemi | The Beat 99.9 FM". The Beat 99.9 FM. Retrieved 29 April 2017.

Redirect to Chocolate City Music. Aside these sources [2], [3], this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is notable enough to stand on it's on, as it's said on the article "This article about a Nigerian singer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" not redirecting or deleting. The first nomination made by you in 2016, was clear the article was a case of WP:TOOSOON not now the article meet's it's criteria's.--Obari2Kay (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obari2Kay you have a history of writing articles about relatively non-notable Nigerian musicians. You still need to go back to the basics of this community. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwa2Chainz Now i understand the reason's why you guy's keep nominating my articles for deletion, it's because you always see them as not being relevant, Wikipedia has a law which should be followed. Before i write any article's, I always make sure they meet's it's criteria. You said i have a history, what history Jay Pizzle & Fliptyce got nominated for deletion, just two article make's up a history. Point of correction my subject is always notable to stand alone, they only get nominated for deletion because editor choose not to follow WP:MUSICBIO and also like to find forth in my article. Wikipedia never said you need over a 100 or 50 reliable sources to make up a stand alone article, they only said on WP:MUSICBIO "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" in my case all the article i have written meet's more that one criteria of WP:MUSICBIO and also meet's WP:GNG expect for Jay Pizzle and Fliptyce.--Obari2Kay (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This other article from "360 Nobs" [4], "OkayAfrica" [5], "Nigerian Tribune" [6] and Tush Magazine [7], has very significant coverage and this source is reliable enough. With this i should be able to convince you in changing your vote, MelanieN, Celestina007 Oluwa2Chainz and also changing your mind "Versace1608".--Obari2Kay (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obari2Kay: There is nothing significant about the references you mentioned above. The OkayAfrica source briefly talks about his song "Yemisi", not about him. The Nigerian Tribune source is a brief press about his so-called "versatility". The 360nobs source briefly talks about his song "Telephone". None of the sources you cited discusses the subject in detail. As a matter of fact, none of his singles have been discussed in detail. He is still an up-and-coming artist and do not deserve to have a separate article just yet. He only has one hit song to his name. Mayorkun is a bigger artist than Dice Ailes, yet he doesn't have a separate article. You should keep in mind that he was awarded Rookie of The Year over Dice Ailes. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: You said "None of the sources I cited discusses the subject in detail. As a matter of fact, none of his singles have been discussed in detail". Note, "Miracle" was discussed [8] [9] why this is a brief discussion [10] and "Telephone" was also discussed briefly [11]. You also said "None of the sources I cited discusses the subject in detail", the interview with Tush Magazine is clear [12]. Am i wrong @Walter Görlitz: and @TH1980: ?.--Obari2Kay (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obari2Kay: The songs above fail WP:NSONG and has not been discussed in detail. Can you create separate articles about those songs? The answer is no. None of the songs above received full-length reviews, nor did they chart on any country's official music chart. Moreover, they did not receive any notable accolades. The Tush Magazine source is considered WP:PRIMARY because it is not independent of the subject. FYI, primary sources cannot be used to establish the notability of a subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact still remains the same, he is notable to stand alone. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio known as The Beat 99.9 FM [13] and TV network known as Soundcity TV [14]. You may keep trying to change the fact it's meet WP:GNG but that doesn't change my vote as Speedy Keep, here is a debate you contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Gyang on that debate you included this link as WP:GNG [15] and yet you classify Tush Magazine as WP:PRIMARY because you feel it's not independent of the subject. As it was said earlier the subject has a lot of third-party source please note that. Also songs released in "OCTOBER" don't get nominated for an award in that same year, just like you said "The songs above fail WP:NSONG" yes it does but the subject in person passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, but i can bet on it The Headies 2017 and 2017 Nigeria Entertainment Awards that single "Miracle" would get nominated only then i would be able to write an article for the song and also "Miracle" was reviewed [16] but it can't still hold the article together as a stand alone for this article Miracle (Dice Ailes song).--Obari2Kay (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is signed to a major record label and was also included on The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation, a notable compilation album released by Chcolate City in 2015. Also been subject of multiple notable print media and notable radio's stations Rhythm 93.7 FM Lagos [17] & The Beat 99.9 FM [18].--MKJ6006 (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we are now seeing keep !votes from editors with no other edits on en-WP than creating promotional articles about non-notable Nigerian bloggers, rappers etc, and !voting keep when articles of that kind created by others are nominated for deletion. Making me believe that we're seeing a group of people engaging in paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nom, suggest discounting "votes" from accounts with minimal non-promotional edits, per the comment above. It has also been suggested, on other RfDs that MKJ6006 is a sockpuppet. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 17 May 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) 00:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muneer Abdul-Munim Al-Ali[edit]

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

No notability, fails WP:SCHOLAR. the references are search results. Page creator deleted prod JTtheOG (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Four decently cited articles on GS under "muneer al ali". Far WP:Too soon for this bloated BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
comment this one is hard. the article as it was, was bad. I have moved the unsourced stuff to talk, fixed the publications, and added what i could find from sources. you find a bit more if you leave out his middle name. but he has done a lot. perhaps others can find more. if not we probably have to delete this. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant self-promotion. The article creator is also adding self-published books (published through www.createspace.com ), which are obviously their own books, as 'further reading' on articles, showing they're here only to promote themself. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the article creator. I added the self-published books, in a section called "self-published books" and clearly named the self-publisher. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: You misunderstood me, I'm not talking about the article that is the subject of this AfD, I'm talking about these edits by, Widmun, the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you meant to other articles. Yeah that is tacky. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 8 May 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. Clear consensus after discounting the !votes of participants with few edits outside this discussion. Please note that this is not intended to impugn their motives; however, editors with little experience in editing Wikipedia are not likely to have a grasp of sourcing and notability requirements. bd2412 T 00:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Efe Ejeba[edit]

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

Subject of article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Article is written like an advert and the author seems too closely related to the subject of the article herein a WP:COI arises and as thus, neutrality of article is questioned. My !vote! is a strong delete this, maybe, is a case of WP:TOOSOON On further observation, my guess is correct! the 'significance' of this articles subject centers on a cash prize he recently won about 3 weeks ago. Hence, a case of WP:TOOSOON Celestina007 (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources present (Daily Post Nigeria, Premium Times Nigeria and others) appear to meet RS. The sheer volume of sources (21 at present) give us a fair bit of coverage. It may be promotional or TOOSOON, but it seems sufficient for a local musician. Not sure if the award is significant or not. If it is, the subject would meet WP:MUSICBIO and only GNG would be at issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and has not been discussed in reliable detail. The Uzomedia (ref 1), Nairaland (ref 2), and Lailasblog (ref 9) sources are not reliable per WP:USERG. References 3 through 7, 10 through 15, and 17 through 21 are about the subject winning the Big Brother Naija reality competition. Apart from the eighth reference, no other source discusses the artist or his musical releases. An overwhelming amount of the sources cited in the article are only about the subject winning Big Brother Naija. It is safe to say that the subject is significant for his role in a single event. Musicians ought to be notable for their body of work. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You warned me in your recent AfD to "stop making assumptions about what [you] reviewed or didn't review", but it's obvious you only looked at the references in the article and did not do the required research. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Hello @Walter Görlitz you may observe that i took time before i replied you, sorry about that but i like to be thorough, as so, i have come to this conclusion, the editor @Versace1608 does make a valid and sound arguement as almost all sources, (above 90%) all speak about this lucky cash prize he won, this sources although some are reliable, most are gossip blogs just copy-pasting from each other now a key problem is : he(subject of discuss) is a supposed musician, but no reliable source speaks in-depth about his music career there is no significant coverage in reliable sources about his music career, i do not want to even talk about his biography, because the same issue arises herein as well , it is like before he won this cash prize he did not exist, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL we need soures to work here, now if this sources currently are non-existent then its simply a case of WP:TOOSOON! simple things uno, this situation is really a no-brainer a strong delete !vote! is still best applicable here. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and everything else that is relevant. The article is one of a whole group of articles about non-notable people in southern Nigeria created by a small group of editors, and a considerable number of related IPs (currently range-blocked), with obvious connections to a "Pastor Isaiah Ogedegbe", using the articles to promote Ogedegbe and his blogs on en-WP (see this edit by the creator and main contributor to the article being discussed here; self-promotional articles about Ogedegbe have been deleted dozens of times, and are now salted under multiple names, links to Ogedegbe's blogs are blacklisted and a large sock farm has been blocked, but the promotion attempts are still going on). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeeQueue for a deletion discussion about a similar article created by the same editor who created this article, and along with the above mentioned IPs is the main contributor to it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Walter Görlitz i hope this enables you to understand the arguement of Versace1608 even better Celestina007 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Blaming others for providing notable content about Nigerians is BS. If subjects meet WP:GNG they deserve a place on Wikipedia. Period. That editors such as Celestina007 and Thomas.W are not taking the time to actually see if reliable sources exist or not and simply base their opinions on the current state of articles is concerning. That's not what AfD participants are to do. WP:BEFORE is headed "Before nominating: checks and alternatives". Much of that does not appear to be done. If an editor like me can find more than 2000 links, many to reliable sources discussing the subject GNG has been met. I didn't bother to look at the other discussions as this one stands on its own merit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Walter Görlitz: I suggest you stop your repeated claims about others not doing their homework, because I sure did mine, looking for reliable sources that would establish notability per Wikipedia's rules, but found none, only sources mentioning that Ejeba won Big Brother Naija, meaning that the article a) fails WP:GNG since Ejeba and his musical career isn't covered in depth in the multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that are needed, and b) fails WP:ENT since being known for being a participant in a single reality show isn't enough to be notable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest you look at MOS:INDENTGAP and MOS:BULLET. As for repeated claims about others doing their homework, no, I will continue to call people to do the required work for participation in these discussions until they either start to do it or leave. The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO for having won an award and unlike many other award winners, this subject has been written about for winning that award. And the reality show goes beyond that. And the other coverage goes beyond that. And don't ping me again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Walter Görlitz: Award? What award? As far as I can see he has released a single record, and that record was very far from an award winner (in fact it was described as "showing a lack of skill", with the reviewer even saying "nobody wants to listen to this"...), and there's no mention of an award in the article. WP:MUSICBIO also explicitly says that it takes a really big award for an award to be considered as proving notability ("Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award"), and with a single record, a record that was described as showing a lack of skill, he's nowhere near that level. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I see that you didn't read INDENTGAP, BULLET. The award is winning Big Brother Nigeria. Is that not an award? Excuse me if I misspoke or it's not actually an award. In that case, still meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that you are the one who hasn't done the homework properly. You link to WP:MUSICBIO and claim that he has won an award, but when challenged quickly backstep and claim that winning Big Brother Naija is an award (!?!) proving notability. Well, it's not, it's a case of WP:ONEEVENT (see also WP:REALITYTV which clearly states that ONEEVENT also covers TV reality shows). I.e. double fail. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while I'm at it, stop linking to MOS:INDENTGAP and MOS:BULLET since they apply only to articles, not AfD-discussions. What applies here is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, as can be seen in the lead of that guideline. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator should have done a thorough research about the subject before thinking about AfD. Although the article lacks a neutral point of view, these sources [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] are enough to prove the notability of the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they're not. See WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your reason for voting delete is somewhat not convincing asides the socks complaints. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a place for articles about people, places and things with an already established, and clearly proven, notability, not a place for creating notability. As in this case an article about an individual who is known for one thing only, winning a reality show, and is now trying to cash in on that temporary fame by becoming a "recording artist" (so far having released a single record that was met with bad reviews...), and getting international exposure through having an article about him on Wikipedia. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Oluwa2Chainz: In this article, Pulse described him as an upcoming Nigerian rapper. Him winning the competition doesn't change this. He wasn't discussed in reliable sources prior to entering the competition. He actually became popular as a result of the competition. The sources in the article and online clearly shows that the subject's significance is tied to a single event. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per keep votes. "Based on logistics", I do not agree that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON or WP:ONEEVENT. Passes WP:GNG and has won a notable reality show in South Africa. Darreg (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being known for only one thing, winning a reality TV show in Nigeria, is a case of WP:ONEEVENT, and not having in-depth coverage in (multiple) reliable sources means not passing WP:GNG, so I strongly suggest you read the relevant guidelines etc before !voting in AfD-discussions. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The news link above shows the article is notable and also winning a notable competition as Big Brother Nigeria, it's a keep from me.--MKJ6006 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we are now seeing keep !votes from editors with no other edits on en-WP than creating promotional articles about non-notable Nigerian bloggers, rappers etc, and !voting keep when articles of that kind created by others are nominated for deletion. Making me believe that we're seeing a group of people engaging in paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really have enough information to suggest paid editing? This sounds like WP:BADFAITH to me. And I hope I'm not part of the "editors" you're implying are engaged in promotional editing, WP:COI and WP:PAIDEDITING is something I've never violated since joining here. Darreg (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: MKJ6006 has been reported as being a sock of User:Obari2Kay. I suspected both users back in March 2017, but the patrolling administrators handling the case didn't bother to compare them to each other. They are probably meat-puppets. @Darreg: There you go again, making comments about others. FYI, you still haven't shown how the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Show me reliable sources that discusses the subject prior to his time at Big Brother. 21:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop mentioning me if you don't have something intelligent to say, there is nothing wrong with my last comment and everything is wrong with Thomas assumption. So I should keep quiet while someone accuses me falsely. You are so bent on deleting this article that you can't spot WP:BADFAITH when you see one. Darreg (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of anything, so stop trying to draw attention away from the SPAs that my comment was aimed at. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly at best a case of WP:1BIO, perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, aside from the SPA keep !votes above (with the notable exception of Walter, who is a respected editor, but whom which I disagree on their assessment of the underlying sources in this instance), no really valid arguments have been made for retention. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, failing WP:MUSIC. His recent contest win does appear to be WP:ONEEVENT, but the popularity from that may make him notable enough in the future but currently it is WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am Nigerian and I do not know if being the winner of Big Brother Nigeria warrants a page on Wikipedia without other notable achievements to back it up, he is however, very popular here in Nigeria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiomaNika (talk • contribs) 23:29, 17 May 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. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J Shea[edit]

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

Non-notable film maker lacking non-trivial supporT. reddogsix (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -experience includes:

Producing several projects for the Australian National Broadcaster ABC, including one of the first online media projects (2003 - done in flash because bandwidth couldn't handle video!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4LQysWei3Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wT-xHQC30s

Producing numerous travel series in various countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Vietnam, Ireland, America, Central America and pretty much all of Asia. My favourite destinations include Cuba, Borneo and Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qOYJ-7XLPQ

Producing numerous online video tourism campaigns for various regions around Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNz-ydHyN-E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpWmHajeuzI

Working with corporate clients to produce both one off and ongoing online media campaigns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OA7kGk3ZM

Developing a successful business profile format optimised for online video - 2minprofile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbwNrsEO9LI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvbPk9WJSX0

Working with government bodies producing videos related to such areas as staff training and providing community information

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOefyKeC6b8

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCod5k4-FPUF9jhjWj3qNg5Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlandertv (talk • contribs) 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately non of this supports the criteria in WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to not meet notability and also seems to have a conflict of intrest as well. Reb1981 (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising and promotion per CSD:11 like user Overlandtv's other pages. – Athaenara ✉ 04:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Note COI - According to the references and google Overlandtv is Mark Shea?) There seems to be insufficient RSS to support GNG that I can find. There is a little, including some actually talking about the subject, so perhaps TOOSOON. Article is currently not encyclopedic and appears promotional in tone. Aoziwe (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:20, 7 May 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. bd2412 T 00:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Connor (film director)[edit]

(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

(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

Note to closing administrator: The article has been moved to Nicholas Connor (Filmmaker) since its nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connor is a young student filmmaker whose early career shows some promise, but who has not yet achieved the recognition or significant coverage required to meet WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. Articles about him and his work have all been created by a single editor, and all are being co-nominated in this AfD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page should not be speedily deleted because as seen in the reference material there is sufficient material to back notability. The material placed is not bias, notable (as seen there is full media coverage including red carpet events at Odeon Leicester Square with reviews from notable critics/authors. The films linked star actors who have been awarded BAFTA's and are incredibly notable, the productions linked are professional.) and it appears that the contesting of the article is believing age is a factor in success (ie. use of language -student', 'young') when age should not be a factor if the subject is in fact notable. The subject is also not a 'student' and neither are the projects associated, the belief that being a 'young' person is a factor in notability by the wiki editor who contested is an incorrect fact. If the editors read the articles referenced they will understand this notability and I hope not delete this page/other pages associated to 'Nicholas Connor' who the articles are very neutrally written about. Film9 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Film9— Film9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep The page's source material and connections to work with notability suggests the articles notability for Wiki standards. I do however believe the page requires edits to further enhance it, Film9 includes sufficient reference but cites it in a messy way. The article shows industry recognition (awards/nominations with large organizations) and also press recognition matching WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. With more additions to possible festivals/connections would help the matter and with a more experienced Wiki User than Film9 the article may benefit. In addition the films in connection to Nicholas Connor appear in part notable, Cotton Wool has a well-known cast and supported by organizations such as The Stroke Association, Northern Lights (2016 Film) however is less notable with some numerous respected awards and a slightly unknown cast. Wiki Cell (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)— Wiki Cell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment @Wiki Cell: I'm going to have to disagree. The page's source material show a series of local interest pieces on a young filmmaker, but do not show the depth or significance of coverage required, and Connor's connections to "work with notability" is limited to work on his own films (whose notability is questioned in this discussion) and minor roles on other works (whose notability is under discussion elsewhere). The awards and nominations are from smaller, non-notable film festivals. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This looks like a concerted effort to promote this film maker and all a number of people and subjects connected to him. Domdeparis (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add to bundling i'm adding another film to the bundle Think Of Me (2015 Film) which is another of Conner's shorts. Domdeparis (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to create another Afd discussion for a similar series of page creations that this user has done to promote another filmmaker and connected subjects that fail the notability guidlines.Domdeparis (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an interconnected, walled garden meant for promotional purposes. This is a misuse of Wikipedia and needs to be stopped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Johnpacklambert: I'm not sure I'd consider it outright promotion, at least not of an individual. The author's edits suggest rather that he is interested in expanding Wikipedia's content on the British independent film industry as a whole, which is a good thing although the specific choices the editor has made to try to include these specific non-notable examples make for not such a great start. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment(@WikiDan61:)Thank you for your understanding, I hope to begin branching out now and contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Hopefully you will see in my future contributions more notable/helpful edits. I only wished to expand British film industry information as it is what interests me, but on further reading of your comments/ more experience in making edits on Wikipedia, I understand this is not helpful. All the very best Film9 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein: Nicholas Connor (Film Director) and Think Of Me (2015 Film). The latter was added to this discussion on 12:43, 28 April 2017 (diff). As such, !votes prior to this time only pertain to the Nicholas Connor (Film Director) article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Keep all of them. All these articles seem to have enough in the way of references, awards, critical reception (or could have), to satisfy WP:Notability; and the objection that these were added “for promotional purposes” flies in the face of WP:AGF without evidence of paid promotion. As they are all British independents they are something of a niche interest, but then so is most of the content on WP: It wouldn't be here unless someone was interested enough to write about it, so objecting because someone has actually done so seems a bit WP:BITEY, no? Swanny18 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Keep~~' The Northern Lights has won notable awards such as at the London film festival which is a major festival and should be kept, as this a bundle ( which I disagree with as the articles are very different in terms of their notability) my keep vote will have to apply to them all Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Atlantic306: That is incorrect. Northern Lights won the London Film Awards, not an award at the London Film Festival. These are two very different things. The London Film Festival is certainly a major film festival and winning an award there would merit inclusion at Wikipedia. The London Film Awards appears to be a much less significant thing, with no Wikipedia article of its own and no evidence of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the info, have struck keep vote Atlantic306 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the nominator, promising, but not ready for Wikipedia yet. Waggie (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- not notable for Wiki yet, and part of a walled garden of equally nn subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't pass WP:CREATIVE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- his age shouldn't matter, when considering his notability. Being an award winning filmmaker makes one notable -- for certain particularly high-profile awards. Connor is an award winning filmmaker, but not for one of the high-profile awards that confers notability, all by itself. That does not mean that the awards he received don't confer a measure of notability. Notability is not inherited. Merely appearing near more highly notable film personalities does not make him notable. But, I suggest, having them explicitly praise him, say he is a talent to watch, does, also, confer some notability. Some of the references for this article seem weak, obscure. But I accept that others, like this one, do confer genuine notability. In my opinion there are sufficeint notability factors to pass our notability threshhold. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Charles Dance did not say that Nick Connor is a talent to watch. Charles Dance was hired to be the presenter at the Into Film awards ceremony, at which Connor won the "One to Watch" award. These are two very different things. The coverage provided by the Oldham Chronicle for this event is very much of the "local boy makes good" type. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I notice the first two "votes" to keep were made by editors with few or no edits outside the AfD. Ifnord (talk) 19:06, 17 May 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. SmartSE (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Battaglia-Greene[edit]

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

Only notability is collegiate athlete. Does not meet standard of WP:Notability. Jb45424 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources show the sustained coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't make heads or tails out of references, lacks sufficient RS, fails WP:GNG.Cllgbksr (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 May 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. Sandstein 16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgical and Materials Engineering[edit]

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

Article about a journal. No evidence that it passes WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALCRIT. - Mr X 11:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no evidence that this journal meets WP:NJOURNAL. It's included in Clarivate Analytics's Emerging Sources Citation Index, but that's not good enough for WP:NJOURNAL. — Stringy Acid^talk 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Looks like a well-established journal (22 years history) published by a bona fide academic institution, even if from a non-English speaking country. 1510 citations listed on Google Scholar [25]. Impressive editorial board for such a niche journal [26]. Note that WP:NJOURNAL / WP:JOURNALCRIT is an essay and can't be "failed", however it also states that "however, smaller journal can be also be notable if they can be considered to be influential in their field." I suggest we keep this discussion open until enough editors with knowledge of this field weigh in. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The journal meets WP:NJOURNAL. The main criteria for WP:NJOURNAL are these three criteria and it only has to meet one of them: 1) The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. 2) The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources 3) The journal is historically important in its subject area. It likely meets criteria #1 for its small niche given its impressive editorial board filled with very qualified people.[27] (as alluded to by User: kashmiri. Given the small nature of its niche, 1520 citations is notable, so it meets criteria #2. The journal has a 22 year track record which is very respectable, so one could argue that has some historical significance in its field.desmay (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while this initially seems to fail WP:NJOURNALS, based on it being indexed nowhere selective with no independent sources provided to establish notability. Editorial boards are of no consequence, likewise for the number of years it's be published. I would have voted !delete based on that, but then I search for the old name of the journal. Under its old name, it was extensively indexed, amongst others Scopus (Emerging Sources Citation Index, Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Aerospace Database, Civil Engineering Abtracts, Compendex, Metadex, Communication Abstracts, DOAJ). Also, according to its very badly written history page, "The magazine has been awarded the Charter for the best IT publication in 2006." and "According to the National Library of Serbia, this journal belongs to the group of M52 (journal of national importance)...". That makes is a clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS and thus should be kept. However, I'll ping DGG here to confirm this is not a continuation of the journal, and a new journal that replaced an old one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I now located the home page of Metalurgija [28] and it appears that Metallurgical and Materials Engineering is not "a continuation of Metalurgija", which is published to this day, but an entirely different journal. Please correct me if I am mistaken. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am prepared to accept that being on the Emerging Journals part of the ISI database is enough by itself; what that section of the database does is extend the ISI coverage to match Scopus--Scopus' wider coverage was one of its main selling points, and consequently the two have been leapfrogging each other for years now, with the net result that the journal coverage of both has become wider and contains less important journals. If we accept Scopus, we should accept Emerging Journals. As for continuation, there appear to be two journals titled Metalurgija, the one this title continues, which claims to have been published since 1994 by the Association of Metallurgical Engineers of Serbia (which says it is "financially supported by the Ministry of Science of Republic of Serbia") , and the one published by the Croatian Metallurgical Society (which says it is " non-governmental and non-profit organization."), which claims to have been published since 1962 [29]. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, this would be another casualty of Yugoslavia split? — kashmiri ^TALK 12:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Fuhghettaboutit under criterion G12. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 20:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Way (2004 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as advertising and self-promotion. Fails WP:NOTFILM Melcous (talk) 09:03, 5 May 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle match[edit]

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

The only reference provided here gives a passing mention of "the Bottle Cup", a hockey competition, not "the Bottle Match", a rugby competition. A search on Google books turns up only one book discussing this match, and that book was published by the Imperial College Press (which might not be independent from the subject matter). While I do not disagree that the match is old, age alone does not qualify this match as notable. Article lacks substantive discussion in independent reliable verifiable secondary sources, and existence alone does not normally equal to notability. KDS4444 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on WP:NRIVALRY it appears that WP:GNG is the relevant guideline. The source in the article: [30] about hockey is is not really off-topic. The 2nd paragraph in the lead mentioned the mix of sports that began in 2006. There are other sources although some are not independent:[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] It seems reasonable to assume there is much more coverage not online given that this series began in 1902. I'm undecided atm. Gab4gab (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:35, 5 May 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) 00:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ya no hay respeto[edit]

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

A one-city radio program, not on the air (the station it aired on has moved to FM *and* changed hands since 2007). The bio of the host on his website says the show lasted just three months on this station. Raymie (t • c) 07:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 26 April 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 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a local radio program, with no credible claim of notability per WP:NMEDIA. A radio program needs to be distributed nationally (either on a network or through syndication) before it earns an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, and even then can still be deleted if the sourceability just isn't there — but a local radio program lives or dies entirely on the sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — There are no reliable sources for this radio station online that I could find. Notability is in question and fails to meet our criteria for inclusion, as mentioned above.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pora valit[edit]

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

The article itself is factually incorrect. It is not a blog, but a livejournal community, in which users can post or crosspost from other blogs, so it doesn't even belong in its current category. The community does contain a few thousand users (few of them active), but it is not notable enough even within Russia or for Russian wikipedia - there are some occasional mentions in local media or in more prominent blogs, but nothing worthy of a Wikipedia article. The references are circular - [1] and [3] are the same thing and they both simply refer to [2]. [4] just shows the position of the community in the current rating for russian LJ segment - it may have been at the top once, but isn't even in top 10 anymore. The Economist article is the only actual reference - and it only mentions the subject once, in passing, it isn't even the main topic of that article. In short, it just doesn't pass WP:N, nor did it even back in the day when the community was at the peak activity. Malachi108 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources discssing the subject that meet reliable sources standard. Mere user counts do not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some publications about Pora Valit, its creator Yan Polayanski and the immigration consultacy he founded in 2015. Neither himself nor the LJ community or company have enough notability. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 17:09, 5 May 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. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amdocs Optima[edit]

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

Non-notable company with no reliable sources found. Fails WP:COMPANY Tinton5 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- unsourced corporate spam / product brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman. -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:08, 8 May 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. Sandstein 16:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization in Hawaii[edit]

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

I am hesitant to propose deletion of this obviously good faith attempt to create an article on an interesting topic but it needs so much work. Bfpage _{let's talk...} 00:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is an essay of original research that is very synthy even if there was reliable sources. - Pmedema (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree the article was created in good faith, but it should still be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the supervising instructor for the students who put this page up. This was part of a short research paper to show students that wikipedia is a community of writers who check each other. The authors of this page are high school students from Hawaii and so, it would be a shame to delete this good faith effort. May I edit it and see if it passes your muster? Thank you so much for your consideration User:JaysonMChun

I have put a "Welcome" into your talk page User:JaysonMChun. Please see that for assistance. - Pmedema (talk) 22:24, 12 May 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) 00:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Plummer[edit]

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

Candidate for the general election—but unelected candidates are not necessarily notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN. Getting a payment from a county council and organizing a walking bus doesn't clear the general WP:BIO hurdle. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Plummer is a highly influential government official in Poole, Dorset, UK. He was created a Wikipedia page due to the importance of the 2017 snap election in this specific constituency. He is due a surprise victory. His achievements should not be downplayed as done so by C.Fred. The walking bus is the largest ever in history and his prominence in UK local government speaks for itself. GGLD (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Mike Plummer meets the following criteria: - Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them He held subnational office. England is a nation. Being a councillor is therefore sub-national. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8] He has received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". See above. GGLD (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local offices (city councils, borough councils, county councils, etc.) do not satisfy the "subnational office" criterion. In the UK, that criterion covers the Scottish and Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, not offices at the county or municipal levels. And what you're showing for "coverage" of Plummer is not references that are substantively about Plummer, but references that happen to namecheck his existence in the process of being about something else. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The only evidence I see of notability is related to the political campaign he is currently running. As noted above, being a candidate for political office is not notable in and of itself. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local political officials are covered under the Wikipedia terms. GGLD (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. A new, single-purpose account removed the AfD tag and attempted to request page protection. Are you suggesting that you are using that account also? —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Re GGLD's comment "I would delete the AfD on here if so.… Wikipedia are monitoring this due to the politicised nature of the article."] And you would promptly be reported for disruption if you had. If Wikipedia were really monitoring, a Foundation account would have either chimed in or contacted me directly. Neither has happened. —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC) (context added 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC) after GGLD deleted a remark he made)[reply]

This is getting excessively heated. I've retracted some of my remarks. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia's job to be an "unrestricted" source of all possible information — we have specific notability standards that have to be met for a Wikipedia article to become appropriate. If all you had to do to get a person into Wikipedia was show that they had received one or two pieces of media coverage, and the context in which that coverage was being given didn't matter at all, then we would have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who woke up one morning and found a pig in her front yard.

Also, Wikipedia is not a "citizen journalism" project, and we don't keep articles based on people's predictions about who's "due" to win an election that hasn't happened yet, either. After the election results are in, we start new articles about the newly-elected MPs who didn't already have one yet — but they don't get advance articles on here just for being candidates, except in the exceedingly rare instance that you can show their candidacy to be a lot more notable than the norm on the basis of a lot more media coverage than what every candidate for office could always show. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - After reading more about the recent local elections, I've changed my mind on this issue. Wikipedia policy is to maintain pages for elected officials at the national and sub-national authority levels, but not below. In most English-language countries (Canada, US, Australia, even Scotland and Wales) these are well-defined. In England, they are not; the recent elections created positions such as "Mayor Of Greater Manchester" for the first time. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POLOUTCOMES states, "local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." Furthermore, "to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone." In this case, the subject is the recipient of local coverage of his service on the Poole Borough Council, and has not been the subject of national news. The community consensus on WP:POLITICIAN has not been to extend the term of sub-national office to include local borough councils or similar municipal or county office (The text of the policy is explicit to state "statewide/provincewide"). Because the subject does not fit within WP:POLITICIAN, the appropriate standard is WP:GNG - the sourcing in the article and through a news search fail to show significant coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of what party they're standing for, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article out of it. And serving on a local borough council is not, in and of itself, grounds for a Wikipedia article either — municipal councillors are presumed notable only in major metropolitan global cities on the order of London, not in every city, town or village that exists. And every candidate in every election would always clear GNG if four or five pieces of local campaign coverage was all you had to show to get them over the bar — coverage of a non-winning candidate for election to Parliament has to nationalize before it builds a case for GNG.
And for added bonus, even the media sources here largely aren't about Plummer; three of the five just namecheck his existence in coverage of something else; one of the remaining two is a letter to the editor, not news content written by the newspaper's staff; and the last is a purely WP:ROUTINE candidate sketch plainly submitted by his own campaign. None of this constitutes enough substantive coverage about him to mount a valid "passes GNG" claim. And, by the way, I'm Canadian, and about the only difference between the UK's election system and ours is the whole "UK runs all the ballot boxes to a single central count location while Canada counts them onsite at the original polling station" thing, which has no bearing on candidate notability at all — so GGLD can spare me the "you don't understand why the UK is different" angle.
GGLD, further, is getting dangerously close to disruption with their continual unfounded allegations that this has anything to do with ideological bias — and, frankly, given that (a) this is the only topic GGLD has ever worked on, and (b) the "LD" part of their username happens to imply a direct personal connection to the very LibDem party that Plummer is a candidate for, my conflict of interest radar is beeping rather loudly here. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He obviously has a conflict of interest, and probably doesn't even know they're disallowed. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way that the media references constitute notability. My claim is that, due to the government structure in England, local authorities should be considered the "sub-national government level". There's no equivalent body to the Parliament of British Columbia between the local council and the House of Commons. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of NPOL, the "national" level is the United Kingdom as a whole, not England in isolation. Westminster is the national parliament, and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies are the subnational level — if Westminster ever actually followed through on the proposals to create a separate assembly for England and/or various English regions, then those would pass the first-order subnational criterion, but their absence does not reify the local authorities into an NPOL-passing level of government. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any significant coverage in reliable source Amisom (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to reiterate my position: Mike Plummer is a highly influential government official in Poole, Dorset, UK. He was created a Wikipedia page due to the importance of the 2017 snap election in this specific constituency. He is due a surprise victory. His achievements should not be downplayed as done so. The walking bus is the largest ever and his prominence in UK local government speaks for itself. Furthermore, Mike Plummer meets the following criteria: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them (He held subnational office. England is a nation. Being a councillor is therefore sub-national.) Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8] (He has received significant press coverage.) Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". (See above.) Local political officials are covered under the Wikipedia terms. (talk) is correct in asserting that subnational in the UK would be local authorities. This is a point I have been trying to make. How can Amisom claim no reliable sources? There are 5 real newspaper articles from the politician's region. I am covering the local election here for my citizen journalism blog and would not upload the other candidates (exc. the MP) to Wikipedia as, unlike Plummer, they have no important history record online and would not make for an article. By the way, GGLD are my initials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGLD (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that "He was created a Wikipedia page", *you* created a Wikipedia page for him, and you have been arguing on his behalf. You don't seem to understand the Wikipedia rules regarding conflicts of interest. While I'm not suggesting you have any particular role in his campaign, you are clearly biased on his behalf. You make no argument that this seat is more notable than any of the other 600-odd seats up for election this cycle. The claim that election to a local council constitutes notability is a policy one, and no amount of media coverage will aid it. References in the article to primary sources on his previous elections (i.e. election results, or press coverage containing quotes from him on his election to the council) might be useful, however. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An officeholder at the local level of government does not pass GNG just because five pieces of local media coverage exist; five pieces of local media coverage always exist for every person who holds office at that level anywhere. For a local authority councillor to clear NPOL/GNG because of the local position itself, the coverage has to expand to a volume far out of proportion to what would be routinely expected to exist — such as nationalized or internationalized coverage. For instance, if he did something so hugely attention-grabbing that sources from Canada or the United States could be shown to have started covering him, then he would have a valid claim of notability as a local authority councillor — because that coverage would show him more notable than the thousands of other local authority councillors. But at the local office level, Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to all councillors — the sourcing has to mark him out as a special case for some reason beyond the norm.

And, as has already been pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not a "citizen journalism" project. We do not exist as an extension of your blog, and we do not exist to hold the results of your personal citizen journalism efforts in the domain of local municipal politics in your own hometown. We have specific notability standards that have to be achieved for an article to become earned, and we are not just a free platform for anybody to write about just anything they want to. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote: I am covering the local election here for my citizen journalism blog and would not upload the other candidates (exc. the MP) to Wikipedia as, unlike Plummer, they have no important history record online and would not make for an article. That's my only "bias" which can hardly be called that. I made my argument that it's important as this is tipped to be a surprise victory. Please listen to me for a change instead of berating a new contributor. I have submitted a formal complaint to the foundation for your treatment. Moreover, I have added multiple more reliable sources. GGLD (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the Liberal Democrats' profile may be used as a source to support information, it doesn't hold water for notability purposes because it's not an independent source. The BBC, obviously, is an independent and reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a candidate for office does not make you notable per WP:NPOL. Notability must be proven separately and Plummer has credible claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - sources are varied, reliable and aplenty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGLD (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are a mix of primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, and purely WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election in the election area's own local media — which, as has already been pointed out to you several times above, is not enough, in either volume or geographic range, to make an as yet unelected candidate for office notable just for being a candidate in and of itself. And you don't get to "vote" more than once in an AFD discussion — you can comment as many times as you like, but you don't get to preface any followup comments with a "keep" once you've voted keep once. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my mind a second time. Without a single reference covering his election to a local council, or any contemporaneous news coverage of his actions while a member of the council (apart from Parliamentary campaigns), the page must be deleted. Very specifically, I see no proof that the phrase "Newtown ward councillor" on the LibDem bio refers to an elected government position, and not a position in the Liberal Democrat political party. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met. The antics of the article's creator definitely haven't helped their case. Wikipedia isn't a playground. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 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.