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

The result was move back to the draft namespace per the IP's request. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 06:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VJ LYTMAS[edit]

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

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

Non notable DJ, A few cites in the article are dead, others make no mention of him and others are Wordpress which aren't reliable sources, Fails NMUSIC & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article seems to be one of self promotion and does not cite any importance of the said person. Without being notable I'd believe it fails Wikipedia Criteria for Persons(For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded")Thelost byte (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete Revert this page to draft so that the errors maybe fixed back .thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.160.142.36 (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, draftification is an acceptable result. I'm going to close this now with that result. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 06:27, 14 November 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  21:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Turn Out[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFILM Domdeparis (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a Kickstarter-funded documentary with no independent coverage. No prejudice against re-creation if it has a significant commercial release or wins a non-payola film award. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 20 November 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. If there isn't anything worth merging, deletion or redirecting is appropriate. Here there seems to be disagreement as to a redirect target so delete it is. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion and discussed at WP:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern University Hillel[edit]

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

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

no notable local branch of an organization. No references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources have been provided to establish notability under WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything relevant and redirect to Northeastern University. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect: per Bushranger. This gives me no pleasure; never mind being an NU alum, I've been in the building any number of times. (The NU choral director is Jewish, has been their faculty advisor for decades, and has had sectional rehearsals there.) But campus clubs have a high notability bar to clear, and Hillel doesn't clear it. Ravenswing 07:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and and redirect to Northeastern University The article has a lot of stuff, but no real claim of notability. Nor could I find anything a Google search to support a claim. Per Ravenswing, this is not a knock against the organization. Alansohn (talk)
• Delete I see nothing in the article that I think is worthy of merging and redirecting into either Northeastern University or Hillel International - Galatz^Talk 02:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. I would oppose a merge; there's nothing to merge here to Northeastern University. Any such content would be WP:UNDUE in the target article. No point in a redirect either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can be part of List of Northeastern University student organizations like all the other equally unimportant groups on this campus taking over our sidewalks with picketing :) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for admins to see, I'm copying a misplaced AfD comment to here from Talk:Northeastern University Hillel

• Northeastern University Hillel has been in the news recently.

Other Hillel's have their own pages too. Examples: 1. [1] 2. [2] 3. [3] Northeastern University Hillel has been a center for Jewish life for half a century and is its own nonprofit (5013c). Recently in the news: 1. [4] 2. [5] 3. [6] 4. [7]

Coolkof (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Press releases, quotes from an organization and casual mentions cannot support the notability of an organization. That other Hillels have articles of their own is less cause for an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument than more fodder for AfDs. Ravenswing 02:50, 18 November 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. As is there is not enough support for the GNG based keep but the delete argument is too perfunctory to justify deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar[edit]

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

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

Much of the coverage is affiliated with him. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST standards. Störm (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, his reporting on Pakistan and the fact that he was granted political asylum are enough to make him notable. ZarosFlok (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, largely non-notable, his work isn't covered or mentioned by other credible sources. Hundreds of thousands of people are granted political asylum. JesseRafe (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I second comments made by JesseRafe. Delete this likely autobio which is too promotional and contains OR. most of the sources are not reliable and independent of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has a large online footprint as a journalist, see for example books and news refs. More coverage can be found in [8], [9], [10], [11]. Mar4d (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. The mere association of the organization for individuals who were notable regardless of their association with it does not lift the organization itself into notability. bd2412 T 20:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manx Fencibles (badminton club)[edit]

Manx Fencibles (badminton club) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable organization, lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain - If the rationale of deleting this article applies (and of course no rationale is given by the proposer), then in my opinion it applies to the vast majority of Badminton clubs on Wikipedia <see> Tennis and Badminton Club of Reykjavik, <see> Majestic Badminton Club, <see> Københavns Badminton Klub. The articles regarding other Badminton Clubs for example, could not be described as any more 'notable' than the article discussed so therefore any description in the context of the proposed deletion is very much flawed. The article is part of the Category:Badminton clubs and as such fits the context of the category. The article also conforms to the WikiProject Isle of Man. It would appear the 'proposal' comes from nothing more than a haughty laziness from the proposer. Harvey Milligan (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2017. (UTC)

• This is an other article exists argument, generally weak. Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as a non notable sports organisation. As per the above comment by User:Harvey Milligan, some of those other articles are also candidates for AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Roberta Cannell from the Fencibles Badminton Club participated in the 1982 Commonwealth Games, Ann Corlett in the 1970 Games, Cristen Callow in the 2010 Games. Florentyna (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability isn't inherited. Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Florentyna. Stvbastian (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One ref giving the clubs address. Could have been prod probably. Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Szzuk - based on template removal examples here and here, it's unlikely a Prod would have been worthwhile, IMO.-Semperito (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well it is at least added with 3 individual references now, allthough Christen Callow are also known as Christen Marritt according to added reference. Migrant (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment These are non-references breaching WP:SYNTH as the source does not confirm the individual competitor's association with the Fencibles club at the time of the events.-Semperito (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One generic/collective primary source only, with unsourced-expansion and new-heading by ((notability)) template-remover Florentyna (do I need to ((unsourced section)) it?), it's simply a (hobby) promotion-piece for the Isle of Man, a tiny 35x10 mile sea-locked island, not even comparable to the major areas of Iceland or Copenhagen (emphasising this is EN Wkipedia, so strange comparisons drawn?).

  There are also potential issues with the title (spuriously including) "Manx Fencibles", as this is not the name of the organisation depicted at the website per WP:COMMON NAME, so another possible indication of promotion.

  Unlikely to gain any significant secondary sources other than to those circulated in/from Isle of Man, IMO. The originator has boasted of creating some 200+ articles (I only arrived here as their Talk-page is on my Watchlist), so presumably knows-well what the basic requirement/test for notability is - this should be at Facebook, IMO, as not encyclopedic.-Semperito (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. EMachine03 (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, as Szzuk states above, notability is not inherited and we're debating this article, not comparing it to others. Ifnord (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not seeing anything aside from routine local promotional coverage. Fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage of any depth or persistence to amount to little more than, as suggested above, WP:ROUTINE. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 19:14, 21 November 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. It's not clear why this was at AfD. The nomination suggested a merge, not deletion; such decisions don't need the heavyweight AfD process.

In any case, I don't see any clear consensus on whether to keep this as a stand-alone article or merge it into 153rd Cavalry Regiment. There's reasonable arguments made on both sides, and I don't see any killer arguments, nor any overwhelming numerical superiority (not that this is supposed to be a vote count anyway) on either side. So, calling this NC, and people can continue to discuss this on the article talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Guards[edit]

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

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

This is a company-level sub-unit that is not independently notable as most sources are primary. Doesn't meet WP:MILUNIT as below battalion level. Merge relevant details then redirect to its current parent formation, 153rd Cavalry Regiment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Note that despite the seemingly long list of references - only two are secondary - "Sheppard, Jonathan C. "Everyday Soldiers": The Florida Brigade of the West, 1861-1862, Florida State University: 2004. " which is a master's thesis (not generally used as a source on Wikipedia), and "Soldiers of Florida in the Seminole Indian-Civil and Spanish-American Wars. Live Oak, Florida: Democrat Print." (a 1903 book - not sure of RSness). All the rest are PRIMARY sources (annual reports of the Adjutant General, Flordia state assembly documents).Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. as I agree with much of what the Peacemaker67 has said, and Icewhiz's comments. I think we should be reasonably generous with the amount we merge though, there is alot of information here. Dysklyver 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I agree as well, and don't have a strong opinion about how much to merge. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Merge The histories of Florida National Guard units are tied directly to company level units and their communities. This unit has not been tied to a specific Regiment, yet has a very long history as a company. It was also an important part of the Franklin County community. There is little history of this unit that can be merged with a Regiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudangel (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You may be right, but the article currently amounts to a description of which federal units this company was folded into at different times and who commanded the unit at different times. If the unit were independently notable as a part of the county community, there would be reliable, preferably secondary sources talking about the guard's activities or how membership in the guard was important or something like that. Looking at the sources currently there and at newspapers.com and other sources, I don't see anything that really overcomes Peacemaker67's critique. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Franklin Guards is a significant unit to the people of Franklin County and Apalachicola. Just searching their websites for historical information you will find cemetery tours and history walks with certain sites noted for their interest because of this unit. See http://www.floridasforgottencoast.com/historic-landmarks/apalachicola-historic-landmarks/ and https://aahs.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/cemetery%20brochuredownload.pdf Also see the local newspaper reporting about the armory and its history: http://apalachtimes_com.gm5-dastage.newscyclecloud.com/news/20170803/armory-needs-fire-prevention-upgrade Mudangel talk •04:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move/Rename to 4th Florida Infantry Regiment (Confederate) (or similar) and use as a base for documenting that regiment.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename. This is about a specific company in Apalachicola. Part of its history is tied with 4th Florida, then with another infantry regiment, then an engineer battalion, then another infantry regiment. The company's lineage doesn't follow a battalion or regiment. Furthermore, the Franklin Guards were an important aspect of life in Apalachicola. See local newspapers:

• "Franklin Proud of Company E," The Daily Democrat, November 5, 1935, https://www.newspapers.com/image/244663038/
• "Death Claims J P Hickey," Tallahassee Democrat, March 31, 1953, https://www.newspapers.com/image/245184381/
• "FBI Investigates Break in at Franklin Guard Armory," Tallahassee Democrat, January 27, 1970, https://www.newspapers.com/image/245805795/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudangel (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Mudangel, you only get to !vote once. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with possible rename I agree that this is a local military unit and one of many companies with long histories; however this long-lasting unit has as much coverage as many of the larger USAR units that I have written articles about. I would rather not have this article deleted because its information could not realistically be merged as the company was not always an element of units such as the 124th Infantry (for example 106th Engineers have no article), and having this much information about this one company would cause undue weight relative to other companies whose heritage is part of the 124th Infantry and now 153d Cavalry. However, I am open to changing the article title since Franklin Guards is not unique - two Mississippi CSA companies and one from Virginia also used the nickname. Kges1901 (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the meantime, I think it would be a good idea to add a hatnote or see also section linking to those other regiments with this name or regiments with companies with this name. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• However, no other units with the same name are particularly notable. This is the only one which is made notable by its lineage extending into the present.Kges1901 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kges1901 - The civil war era is surely not notable standalone (company B of 4th Florida Rifles), and also post 1941 (where this was absorbed into the regular army). What we are left with - is the 1865-1941 period. During this period - the company was mustered 3 times (as per the article - during the Spanish-American war (76 men, did not participate, after the war listed as 33 men), WWI (no count given) and WWII (17 officers and 69 men). So we're talking about a local militia unit, that was (per the article) part of the Florida National Guard, that numbered less than 100 men. Perhaps the Fort Coombs Armory is notable. But the local branch of the state milita, with less than 100 men? Most of the content of note could possibly be merged to Florida National Guard.Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Icewhiz - Florida National Guard did not exist until 1903, previously the Guards were part of the Florida State Troops. The problem with upmerging is that the higher articles don't exist and if we merged with FL NG it would unbalance the article since a company is of little significance to the overall history of the Florida National Guard.Kges1901 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Florida National Guard seems to be covering the period from 1861 in the commander section at least (though spotty elsewhere). Maybe there should be a Florida State Troops article?Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Icewhiz, Kges1901, I can take suggestions. It is a work in progress. There's been a lot of research just to get to this point. But I created the article because it is a unique unit whose history does not follow a higher level Battalion or Regiment. And it was a significant organization in Apalachicola, Florida that represented a very significant proportion of the population. Just looking at that town, you'll see the population has fluctuated from 1,900 in 1860 to 3,000 to 2,000 today. So, while numbers may seem small, The company represented roughly 5% of the town's population in the Civil War, nearly 3% around 1890, and 2% in 1940. That is noteworthy when you know not even half of 1 percent serves in the U.S. Armed Forces today. The point is the unit was an important social structure to the town. I am currently working with the United States Army Center of Military History to get separate lineages for some special and notable companies in the Florida National Guard. This is one of them.

• Merge per Peacemaker67 not notable Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - effectively a separate infantry or other company for significant portions of its history and thus notable. In my view, also, all these named companies are effectively self-contained separate "regiments" on the British model, and thus notable individually. Finally, I would also argue that we should not destroy a long and well-researched article, which is the cincher for me. Would possibly reduce it, but merging would unbalance the text about the current regiment. Possible title would be Franklin Guards (Florida).Buckshot06 (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Buckshot06, Exactly! Thank you. The companies throughout the Florida National Guard are still being moved between battalions/regiment to new ones. This is called re-stationing or re-flagging and it shows that the common historical thread is with the individual companies. I only recently built this article and planned to continue to develop it. I have stopped since its up for deletion. Franklin Guards (Florida) would be a good title.

• Merge per Peacemaker67; below battalion level. Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This Sept. 18, 1861 article in the New York Times appears to be about this unit A Bold Exploit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage over a century and a half, in books as well as newspapers, passes WP:GNG even if it is a sub-regimental level unit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Were the Franklin Guards and the Apalachicola Guard the same unit?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Apalachicola is in Franklin County. See this 1893 Apalachicola city directory for example; note that at the time the Franklin Guards were in the 3rd Battalion, so it is an example of technically erroneous identification by contemporary media. Kges1901 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Zobel[edit]

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

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

Non notable actor, filmography lists are all non- notable films. Initially PRODed then redirected, now uplifted again by an IP user. Ajf773 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Small filmography, and death doesn't establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet criteria in WP:NACTOR. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep blatantly passes WP:GNG with hundreds of sources available online and elsewhere. A book has been written about her life: Claudia Zobel: An Untold Story by Jessie B. Garcia. A film has been made about her life: Karanasan: The Claudia Zobel Story. Also, she very much passes WP:NACTOR as she was nominated for a best actress award for her role in Sinner or Saint and she had a significant role in This Is My Country, a film which was presented at Cannes and was selected as the Philippine entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 58th Academy Awards. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep there seems to be quite a few sources out there but mostly because when she was exhumed to make room for another member of her family her body was in a surprisingly good state of conservation 30 years on. She also seems to have been a "soft porn" actress which is not mentioned in the article. WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable films, I am not sure that this is shown in the sources. Neither the film about her life not the book about her life seem particularly notable (very few hits) but it may have made an impact in the Philippines at the time. But when you add up all of this GNG seems to be met. Domdeparis (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to be sufficient coverage online to establish notability, and having a book written and a film made about them is a pretty strong indication of notability. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability has been established, nice work Biwom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 14 November 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  21:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Henesy[edit]

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

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

Delete: fails notability as actor. I know he played a cult character from the original Dark Shadows, but ... Quis separabit? 08:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks even one reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you didn't add one becasuse...? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Refs are surprisingly hard to find for him, due to a full spread of self-published books on the show. However I was able to throw a couple of refs in. I think there's barely enough here to squeak past the notability thresholds; the answer to 'is Wikipedia improved by this deletion' is 'no, not really'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 6 November 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  21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jones-Matthews[edit]

Brenda Jones-Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a former mayor of a small city. The city has a population of just 22K, which is not large enough to hand the mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but this isn't sourced well enough to pass WP:NPOL #2 as "the subject of significant press coverage" -- the only source here is a one-sentence namecheck of her existence as a "what happened elsewhere" coda to an article that's fundamentally about the mayoral race in Indianapolis rather than the mayoral race in Franklin. It's not enough to verify that she exists -- she needs to be the subject of much more press coverage than this, supporting much more substance than just "she exists". Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete far below any notability criteria. We have for too long had way too many articles on small town mayors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  From WP:ATA's WP:BIG,

  "Delete An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is not notable. – Notbigenough, 04:56, 7 August 2006"

    posted by Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The nominator currently has 15 Indiana mayors nominated for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Notability is not defined by sources in the article, see WP:N.  There is no evidence of a problem here.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's no sign of WP:NPOL or WP:GNG being met here. I can't even find the WP:MILL coverage I'd expect of the mayor of a medium-sized American town. The only reference is a trivial one-line mention in election coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The ninth entry of WP:BEFORE D1 for Google web from the Indianapolis Star reports that she was the first woman mayor of Franklin.  WP:BEFORE D1 Google books reports that she received recognition from both the Indiana House and the Indiana Senate (all of whom are notable) in 1999.  Indiana has a free archive of newspapers, too, did you look there?  And WP:N is not an argument for deletion if you have ignored the WP:ATD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "First woman mayor of her own small town" is not an automatic notability criterion for a mayor — every single place that has ever had mayors at all will always eventually have its own first woman, so there's no automatic notability freebie for a mayor just because of her gender in and of itself. If a place isn't large enough that all of its mayors would be automatically accepted as notable because mayor, then the first woman in that list is not automatically more notable because woman than any of the men who preceded her are. Her notability, rather, depends on the same conditions as any other mayor of the same place: being shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about her to clear WP:NPOL #2 (which requires considerably more than just being able to minimally source the fact that she existed.) Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John L Dulin[edit]

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

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

Biography of a former mayor in a small city. The city (pop. 55K now, pop. God-Only-Knows when he was mayor 112 years ago) is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article isn't sourced well enough to get him over the "who have received significant press coverage" condition in NPOL #2 -- the only sources here are a list of the past mayors on the city's own website, and his entry at Find-a-Grave, neither of which make a smalltown mayor notable in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is actually easy to find out the population of Noblesville when Dulin was mayor. Like most other Wikipedia articles on cities in the US, the article on Noblesville includes a chart showing its population at various censuses going back to the first census that reported that place. A few even include similar entities that pre-date the current one. Anyway Noblesville had 4,700 people in 1900 and just over 5,000 people in 1910. It would be extreme inclusionism to have an article on someone who served as mayor of a city of this size for only one year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NPOL is clearly not met, and there aren't references (regarding his business career or anything else) to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 20 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Insurance Agents Association of Ohio, Inc. (PIA)[edit]

Professional Insurance Agents Association of Ohio, Inc. (PIA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An organisation which demonstrates no notability. Searches are equally opaque and give standard directory listings but nothing more. All sources are own web-site - nothing independent. Likelihood of being notable is low as this appears to be a state enterprise. The tone of the article is highly advertorial. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much external commentary on these guys. Furrykiller (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable organizations entirely made from one primary sources. No evidence that this organization receive coverage in Independent sources.  — Ammarpad (talk) 17:58, 18 November 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  21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Armstrong (mayor)[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a mayor in a small city (44K). The city is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article is not sourced well enough to get him past WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage: the only "source" here at all is the city's own self-published website. And the article has existed in this state since 2004, and it doesn't speak highly of his notability if in 13 years nobody's ever been arsed to actually add any sourcing or substance to it at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's this bit of Watershed: Service in the Wake of Disaster which in my opinion—as 2–3 paragraphs, inclusive of other coverage in the book—reflects significant coverage, and a google search on the author does not bring up indications that a lack of independentness and reliability is there, so I conclude that this source constitutes one of the two sources required for the general notability guideline. After doing an enormous amount of searches on three different platforms—despite finding out that he handled finance in Indianapolis, was Democratic, and a load of other information—I have to conclude that the subject is not notable currently. However, there still may be more sources out there, so my !vote is thus weak delete. J947^{( c ) (m)} 04:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete the only source in the article is the city's own website. This is no where near what we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 14 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idress Bakhtiar[edit]

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

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

Not much coverage for him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - the subject received some coverage in the RS like namechecking but I don't see the subject has notable career therefore I suggest the page to be deleted. --Saqib (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable journalist. There's nothing here to suggest the person meets or exceeds WP:JOURNALIST. The puffery language currently in the article such as "attracted wide readership" and "leading political lights" (both uncited) show a potential COI for the creator of the article who was possibly trying to promote themselves or a person of their acquaintance. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 16 November 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  21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RG Premium[edit]

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

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

Article contains numerous inaccuracies and is out of date such that the topic is not covered in sufficient detail. As a current product line, the subject is evolving, but this article appears to have no editor or sponsor who has made any serious effort to keep it updated since its creation. There appears to be little or no effort to maintain this article as evidenced by the citation warning that has been unaddressed since 2012. Further, the scope of this article seems inappropriate as there is already an article covering the Ibanez RG series; as the Premium line is a sub-set of that it would seem that this could all be covered in that article such that perhaps a merge would be appropriate should anyone feel the content of this article has value. I would submit that perhaps an article covering the entire Ibanez Premium line (which includes other guitar and bass series than just the RG series) would be more appropriate if someone were interested in creating such an article. As it stands this topic seems like one that could be (and is) covered more accurately and completely outside of WP. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My initial thought on this was to Keep it because the rationale given in the nomination are largely reasons to improve the article not delete it. However the acid test is whether there are WP:RS which talk about this particular guitar. My searches have failed to find anything. The first few pages of Google results are sites which sell the guitar, or user-submitted stuff or items which are obviously regurgitated press releases and therefore not independent. Google books and scholar results aren't any more enlightening. Neiltonks (talk) 17:02, 6 November 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. Consensus is clear on this nomination being potentially WP:SNOW. Alex Shih (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outposts: Journeys to the Surviving Relics of the British Empire[edit]

Outposts: Journeys to the Surviving Relics of the British Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book Amisom (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to the name of the 1987 edition, The Sun Never Sets: Travels to the Remaining Outposts of the British Empire, which was widely reviewed in the major newspapers. See the Washington Post review. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As it was originally released in the pre-internet era reviews from that time are going to be harder to find. StarryGrandma has found an excellent source from the Washington Post which helps confirm notability per WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, in addition to the Washington Post review, there is a review in the The Christian Science Monitor - here, and a couple of short "trade reviews": Publishers Weekly here, and Library Journal here. also agree that article should be renamed to the 1st edition title. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK are met with evidence of reviews, plus Google Scholar suggests the reprinted title at least is cited at least 62 times in other academic works. Google Books also shows this work is referred to and used as a reference in many other works. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 08:57, 15 November 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  20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ross Salerno[edit]

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

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

Small business with no meaningful sources in the article or found in a Google search. The article is a few years old but remains an orphan, with no integration into the rest of the encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I don't see how this can meet WP:GNG, but I could be convinced otherwise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. There is still a delete opinion here, so we don't have a speedy keep as withdrawn, but the consensus seems so overwhelming that there's little point in waiting. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon of Joe Arpaio[edit]

Pardon of Joe Arpaio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Withdrawn by nominator - BLP & NPOV issues have been addressed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Atsme has removed 21,000 bytes from the article, more than 50% of it. Gpc62 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Soapbox attack-like article with speculation and innuendo. The pardon was already mentioned in Presidency of Donald Trump and there's a long, detailed section in Joe Arpaio#Trump Presidential pardon with 88 mentions of the word "pardon" in that article. UNDUE is putting it mildly. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is 90%+ copied from that long detailed section in Joe Arpaio..so I highly doubt it is an attack-like article. I was hoping to do a WP:SPINOFF and make that section in Joe Arpaio much shorter, as it is undue and a lot of it is irrelevant for the article on Joe Arpaio. Galobtter (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

90% copied makes it a copyvio which should be speedy deleted because of the multiple authors involved who are not credited in this article. Aside from that, it's nothing more than a "newsy" event, Galobtter. It holds little encyclopedic value beyond POV in what appears' to be a soapbox attempt to either justify the pardon, or condemn it. It was a pardon, period the end. Everything surrounding why is speculation, and even though it was covered by MSM, it doesn't warrant as much coverage as it has already received in the article, nevermind a stand alone. Not everything that is covered in the news belongs in WP. I think this article is clearly one of those instances but I'm only one voice, so let's let consensus decide, ok? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is not applicable for not giving credit or for this kind of copying. Will be adding the proper credit to the talk page. Please read WP:NPOV again. I point to the first sentence: all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If there are significant views that the pardon was xyz we include that. Also considering this was taken straight from the Joe Arpaio article, I assume this has already been atleast somewhat hashed out there. Galobtter (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just linking to Talk:Joe_Arpaio#Pardon section where I explain why I think a WP:SPINOFF is justified. Galobtter (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{Which also includes arguments for why it isn't.😁 Atsme📞📧 19:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

• Regarding the "only news media" nature of the event - here's an article in a journal that has some analysis on the pardon and its ramifications and how it crosses a line. The article already has a lot of legal analysis and what not that cannot really fit and would be (and is) mostly irrelevant for the Joe Arpaio article. Galobtter (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Vehement (and Adamant) Keep. Is the nominator possibly as uninformed as his comment makes him appear? This is a "newsy" event? Are you joking? "Aside from that, it's nothing more than a "newsy" event,"- This comment reveals nothing about the world but your own ignorance of it. Many of America's most respected legal scholars have stated that the Arpaio pardon provokes major constitutional questions due to 1) the pardoning of a close Trump associate and supporter; 2) the unprecedented pardon prior to sentencing, without expression of remorse or partial service of the sentence; 3) due to the fact that Arpaio's crimes were themselves in violation of the constitution. I could cite for you literally well over 1,000 articles written by legal academics on this issue, which is far from over- there will be legal battles over this pardon for years. If you'd like to insert your foot deeper into your mouth, please be my guest. I'll note as well that we have Bill Clinton pardon controversy and an article on every other President's pardons, and this is surely the most controversial and notable pardon since Pardon of Richard Nixon. There is no reason for this material to be buried in the swamp of Joe Arpaio article. We do cover notable legal events here, do we not? No one says "No reason to have an article on O.J. Simpson murder trial, when that can just go in O.J. Simpson," do they? I honestly am struggling to see how this nomination could have been made in good faith; the arguments are, frankly speaking, embarrassing. Infamia (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Striking out !vote as the user has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. SkyWarrior 16:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Merge into Joe Arpaio. This doesn't need a standalone article. This is exactly notable enough for a section of an article. It can be adequately covered there without spinning it off. While it's possible that more information will come in the future, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the forcing of as many sources as possible into the text is a large part of what makes me suspect that this is a one-sided article by someone with an agenda trying desperately to make it stand. Perhaps if it were more NPOV, I would believe that this is actually notable enough that it could eventually become a thorough and well-balanced article. Natureium (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has turned into a discussion of things only tangentially related. Natureium (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{Psst, Natureium, can't merge into the main article as this article is 96% of what's already in the pardon section at Joe Arpaio, the latter of which needs a major edit reduction to comply with NOTNEWS, UNDUE, SOAPBOX, and eliminate all the trivial speculation and editorializing. My thoughts are to eliminate this article, and substantially trim down the section at the main article. Atsme📞📧 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment: what sources support your opinion that "This is exactly notable enough for a section of an article."?Infamia (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even ignoring the analyses and extraneous cites - the parts about the hurricane and about charlottesville and the rally where trump heavily implied the pardon would be somewhat much for the Joe Arpaio article. Galobtter (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From the talk page (Talk:Joe Arpaio) there is a good argument for why the article was split in the first place. As Gablotter says "while the pardon is very important, a lot of its importance derives from matters unrelated to Arpaio himself and there shouldn't be so much on it in an article about Joe Arpaio." The article is clearly notable, and I don't think merging is a good idea per Gablotter. Acebulf (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This should be in the Joe Arpaio article. No need for a separate article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Remember, this is not a vote, so please supply a Reason for your view, or your vote will be disregarded. Stating that the article should be deleted because "there is no need for a separate article" isn't a reason. That's simply another way of re-stating your opinion that there is no need for a separate article. Try telling us why. Infamia (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason would you link to the word reason? Are you trying to imply that if someone doesn't supply a reason that you find sufficient, they must not know the definition of "reason"? Natureium (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My linking to reason was what's called a joke. Do you know about those, too? Notwithstanding all attempts at humour, the point stands: stating something "should be deleted because it should be deleted" doesn't count as giving a reason. It's merely re-stating the preference. I was trying to elicit why they felt the pardon is not notable, given the abundance of sources saying otherwise. Infamia (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Snoogans can defend himself (or herself) just fine, but your reason given is really reaching. No one on this page said "should be deleted because it should be deleted". The person you replied to said "This should be in the Joe Arpaio article. No need for a separate article." I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I'm pretty sure they are saying that it doesn't need an article because it can be appropriately covered in the existing article. That's a reason. Natureium (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do believe it is you who are reaching. The question is WHY you believe this is this not notable to be covered in its own article, or WHY you believe this is this insignificant enough to only merit discussion in Arpaio's article. On this score, neither you or Snoogs have supplied an answer. You've merely re-stated what was obvious merely in your votes to delete: that you think the topic does not merit its own article. I'm seeking enlightenment as to why you think this, or whether there are any sources supporting your view that this is merely a news item of passing interest, notwithstanding the fact that it still continues to be extensively written about, and notwithstanding the fact that the ongoing legal challenges and constitutional crisis continue to develop. Infamia (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean redirect to Joe Arpaio#Trump Presidential Pardon. Galobtter (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Also Wikipedia:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Galobtter (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The Arpaio article is already too long. Shortening the case and pardon sections in the main article and allowing this one to exist is a better solution. Rhadow (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At first sight of the AfD, I thought a merge would be sufficient, but on further review I found that, as Acebulf says above, the article legitimately goes beyond Arpaio's biography to other content, and a separate article makes sense. It is not inherently an "attack" page in the Wikipedia sense but an effort to cover a subject of controversy and lasting significance; if there is an imbalance in the summary of content from reliable sources, it can be improved via the normal editorial processes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (obviously) Like I was saying in the link above, there's a lot of legal analyses, criticisms by senators and scholars, how "issuing this pardon would be an impeachable offence" that is pretty irrelevant and undue for the Joe Arpaio article. Essentially most of the reaction section is way too much for an article on Joe Arpaio. But the pardon is still important, and still received a lot of coverage. So this is a simple WP:SPINOFF. Galobtter (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article needs work, but the subject is independently notable, and there are enough reliable sources on it to pass our inclusion criteria. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to editors that this article is already a section in Joe Arpaio, and we don't need two. When the information in that article is chiseled down to contain only the information that is relevant to the pardon itself, and now that I've removed much of the noncompliant statements and character assassination style opinions by detractors, (which will also be done at the main article), we can eliminate one, preferably this one because it doesn't warrant being a standalone. Please keep that in mind. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

noncompliant statements and character assassination Could you give me examples of that? As far as I can see, most of the statements are about the legality and wiseness of the pardon and possible effects of it, and are all sourced and given due weight (most RS, including journals etc, reported statements that were essentially against the pardon thus that has to be represented). My proposal was and is to keep this with all the analyses and significantly shorten the section in Joe Arpaio to mostly talk about how the pardon relates to him and not stuff about Trump etc. Galobtter (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Ah I see you've removed it now. Not sure how sourced legal analyses from respected legal scholars and describing the pardon as being troubling is a BLP issue... Galobtter (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I don't think you really understand what this article is about. It isn't about Arpaio. The personalities of the individuals involved is not relevant to legal analysis. I have no clue what you are possibly reading that you think this is "character assassination." this is precisely WHY there needs to be two separate articles; the issue of Joe Arpaio's "character" has no relevance here. Can you do us a favor and read some of the sources before you go on a deleting rampage again? You might then actually have an idea what this article is supposed to be about. Hint: it's not Joe Arpaio, so we don't really care about "assassinating" his character. Spare us the melodrama. Infamia (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think she might be complaining about how the criticism of the wiseness of the pardon is "assassinating" Trump's character. Galobtter (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes somewhat more sense (though I'd still find it strange to think the criticism involves Trump's character, rather than the constitutionality of the pardon), but I would find it easier to see what was being objected to, if nearly the entire page was not deleted at once. As I've also said elsewhere, regardless of the merits of the deletions, I don't think it's appropriate to delete large sections composing more than half of the article while a deletion discussion is going on, since it effectively makes this discussion impossible and bars anyone else from contributing their opinion. I would assume "don't blank the page" would reasonably also entail "don't delete 2/3 of the page" as well, but perhaps someone else would know better than I about that. Infamia (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I did put a note below so that people know that the large portions of the article have been removed and can at least check the previous version. Galobtter (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note For those !voting later, Atsme removed a large portion of the article, so you may want to check the previous version. Galobtter (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC) An admin has protected and it currently has the full text Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 16:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The pardon has generated massive amounts of media attention and commentary over nearly three months so far, as well as raising significant constitutional questions and legal questions/issues/commentary. Even beyond the historical significance and the fact that the pardon massively passes GNG, the relevant noteworthy material cannot all comfortably fit in (be merged into) another article(s). Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easy pass of WP:GNG. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a lot to be said here that isn't necessarily relevant to the Arpaio BLP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is obviously a very notable subject that cannot be adequately covered in Presidency of Donald Trump or Joe Arpaio. I find that the claim that the article is a "WP:Soapbox attack-like article with speculation and innuendo" to be completely meritless.- MrX 16:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly consider Analyses and Ramifications NPOV, much less worthy of inclusion considering WP's requirements for medical opinions to meet the requirements of MEDRS, not what some armchair "experts" and journalists think based on their political opinions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What..What does MEDRS have to do with this? Also are you saying law professors are not experts in law? That's incorrect literally by definition. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 17:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to see it is what makes me say what? Just curious...Galobtter, weren't you the one who originally made this article a redirect to Joe Arpaio and the now blocked sock reverted you? We can discuss the details of the NPOV issues on the article TP, but for quick clarification here: Experts also said that the pardon sent a permissive signal to people in law enforcement to commit unlawful acts. Permissive signal to commit unlawful acts? What is that supposed to mean? That law enforcement is mentally incapable of determining what is and isn't unlawful, and that they should just admit that what the detractors/opposition says about the pardon is the way it is? There's also this: Several experts on authoritarianism described the pardon as illiberal... Experts making a diagnosis of "authoritarianism" - that's illiberal which means it restricts "thought"? Again, mental analysis. You can call it legal but that doesn't make it so. Keeping in mind "there is nothing in the text of the Constitution’s pardons clause to suggest that he exceeded his authority" so what is all the "expert" analysis about - it certainly isn't just about legal issues based on how some of it is written, not to mention UNDUE. To the TP if you want to discuss it further. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Galobtter. There is no biomedical information in the article. It's just bizarre to suggest that the article doesn't meet the requirements of MEDRS. Such comments completely undermine the credibility of your arguments.- MrX 21:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is your prerogative but it's still a form of psychoanalysis which makes it WP:FRINGE and as such, it effects WEIGHT. Laws are written - this article provides verifiable written opinions while giving little weight to statements of fact. We can quote opinions as long as we exercise caution as to what those opinions are saying about a BLP and how much weight we give those opinions and whether or not the RS is free of potential COI. Like the section title reads, it's speculation which means it is not evidence-based. The editorializing has taken the article to a new level of noncompliance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same article? Natureium (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

😀 Yes, with the section titles: Speculation and Background and Analyses and Ramifications - WP is now speculating and analyzing based on allegations and opinions of detractors, making the article UNDUE rather than presenting balance per NPOV and sticking to proven facts in a dispassionate tone per PAGs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not engaging in any sort of speculation. That's utterly and completely false. The "speculation" refers to the fact that people were predicting - and he himself was saying that he might do it - that he would do it weeks before he did it. That heading should probably be changed to just "Background"- I was just quickly splitting the sections and creating headings for them. (maybe read the article a little closer) Reporting the analysis of legal scholars - whatever it is, positive or negative - is not "allegations and opinions of detractors". Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 15:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It never hurts to refresh our memories regarding policies, in particular WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I read the article, and whether or not you call it "speculation" or "prediction", they are both noncompliant as written and sourced. If you want to use "prediction", then read WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don't predict the future, and we only use inline text attribution when a source we're citing is questionable, has a COI, or bias against the subject, which is exactly what we're seeing in some of the sources used here and at Joe Arpaio. As an AfC reviewer, you are aware of our PAGs and your good work there supports it. I'm not quite sure why it's not extending to this article as it did in the beginning prior to the sock being blocked. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, please could you explain why you are revert warring over whether this article has been reviewed or not. Why do you keep unreviewing it, particularly as this discussion continues. Is this action related to your not being allowed to strip the article of stuff you don't like while this discussion is going on? It would also be nice if you would stop bludgeoning this discussion with your own interesting interpretations of policy. This behaviour is still pathetic. I do find it amusing that the struck comments by the sock in this discussion demonstrate a better knowledge of policy than your own. -Roxy the dog. barcus 17:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: She did it by mistake - see User_talk:Arthistorian1977#I_have_unreviewed_a_page_you_curated_9. She unreviewed it once - hardly "why do you keep unreviewing it". There's no need to immediately jump to the bad faith conclusion. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 17:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: For all the very clear reasons repeatedly stated above: clearly meets GNG, warrants discussion at length, but lengthy discussion does not belong in the articles on Arpaio or the Trump presidency (eg, the legal/constitutional issues take it far beyond being merely a subtopic of Arpaio). Gpc62 (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Softlavendar's assessment. -Roxy the dog. barcus 15:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 by nominator. There was a error of nominator. see here. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Ottaway[edit]

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

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

I am not sure this meets WP:PROF. All of her publications are short reports, not books, and I don;t see how this meets either NAUTHOR o NPROF. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 13 November 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 Benjamin Castleman#Benjamin Castleman Award.  Sandstein  20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Castleman Award[edit]

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

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

no evidence for notability of this award, which is based upon a single publication by a young author. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Benjamin Castleman. Lots of professional, scientific and other awards are notable only within a specific field or profession. Feel free to flag me to reconsider if someone finds evidence of secondary sources that show notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect / merge to Benjamin_Castleman#Benjamin Castleman Award. It's appropriate to cover the award in the bio section of the person it's named after. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, but I think United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology is a better target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kettlebell Grips[edit]

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

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

Entire article is written like a manual. The article is also written in an unencyclopedic manner. EMachine03 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you people decide to delete, make sure you also delete the much shorter version of the barbell grip/hook grip. Keep it up! Taco Fleur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. EMachine03 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entirely unreferenced and Wikipedia is not a how to manual. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- As has been stated, the article is a "how to" manual and completely unreferenced, and is unsuited for inclusion in Wikipedia. Any useful content can be merged into Kettlebell. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though creating a redirect to Kettlebell after deletion (to discourage re-creation) might be appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Pact rail[edit]

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

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

A type of Soviet rifle accessory. Fails WP:V. The only source is a self-published website. A search for "Warsaw Pact rail" yields only books and articles about rail transportation in Warsaw Pact countries.  Sandstein  17:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try "AK+Side+Rail" or "AK side mount". Even "warsaw pact Side Mount" or "warsaw pact Side rail" will do the trick. This mounting system obviously exists, there's no reason for deletion. Maybe cause there's no known offical name like Weaver or Picatinny as its american counterparts have [12]. So we need to find a proper lemma and eventually move this article.--Markscheider (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it exists, but existence is not enough for an article, we need sources. See WP:V, WP:GNG.  Sandstein  20:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, It seems to me that the only reason this page was created was because there's are already Picatinny rail and NATO Accessory Rail pages and the creator felt that this rail system was somehow being ignored.--RAF910 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not showing notability for a stand alone article and has WP:RS and WP:V issues. Kierzek (talk) 19:33, 14 November 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 Asansol Municipal Corporation.  Sandstein  20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asansol Metropolitan Area[edit]

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

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

Doesn't exist (other than every town has a notional commuter belt). The 2011 census only lists Asansol urban agglomeration which is covered well enough within the Asansol Municipal Corporation article. A Google search finds no mention of it by the Indian Government. Batternut (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Asansol Municipal Corporation. I'm not sure if any content should be merged, or if ((R from misnomer)) should be applied. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Godfather (2006 video game)#Plot. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Trapani[edit]

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

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

Not a notable character; retelling of plot and a list of in-game weapons. No standalone notability. Redirect to The Godfather (2006 video game)#Plot soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or redirect per the nom. --Izno (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete and merge to The Godfather (2006 video game). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the page history and then redirect to The Godfather (2006 video game). Such a large and detailed fan page may be appropriate for the frivolity of the Godfather Wikia but not for a serious project such as Wikipedia. This WP:FANCRUFT is much too large and detailed to not have the history deleted. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:57, 18 November 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  20:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vendasta[edit]

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

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

There is some notability, but in current form it's highly promotion and overloaded with PR references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to remove the PR references but I don't see where it is highly promotion. Barbarabcarneiro (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the current version and references are promotional to the point of WP:G11/WP:TNT. The article barely says what the company does; it's purely funding announcements, links to Crunchbase profiles, and vanity awards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Hope Club[edit]

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

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

Purely promotional, most of the work has been done by a (fully disclosed) paid editor. No notability established as per WP:BAND, I believe this clearly does not belong here, and in the two months since the last AfD nothing of notability has occurred. Shritwod (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For a group at this early stage of their career, with no hits and barely any releases, the only real avenue for notability is sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources, and it simply isn't there. The best I could find is a short, possibly press-release-based piece in the singer's local newspaper ([13]). The sources cited in the article are generally not reliable.--Michig (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As I commented in the first AfD last month, the band is signed to Hollywood Records, and their performance this year at Arthur Ashe Kids' Day (which was broadcast nationally on ABC on August 26) would presumably qualify here: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."--Bernie44 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep this feels like WP:TOOSOON, but I can't make a case to delete it. I'm not convinced that the broadcast that Bernie44 mentions is sufficient for notability, but between that and a 2017 Teen Choice Awards nomination, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I expect that in a year they will either be clearly notable, or there will be a follow-up AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps this is the case of creating the article before it should have been. But there's improvement both in the article and their brand image( by that ABC broadcast and news) from the last AfD to now, this may means they are going there. Last AfD was in September, now two months exactly; this AfD I can say is actually hasty, because they cannot get notability overnight in 60 days. If this result in keep, perhaps one more AfD in 2 to 3 years time will finally determine whether they merit inclusion or not, but for now, keep...  — Ammarpad (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi (Buddhism)[edit]

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

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

Scope of topic is unclear: does it concern a class of religious people in Myanmar, or in Buddhism in general? Moreover, I have not been able to find any sources about the topic on Google Scholar or on Google News. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The content on article and the name of Article is totally different.Nor it has any Source.And it isn't clear what this article is about No doubt it should be deleted Anmolbhat (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article is unsourced, the content does not appear encyclopedic. I found no reliable source on Google books or JSTOR. JimRenge (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG, fails DICDEF as it is right now. South Nashua (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mustache Gallery[edit]

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

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

Non-notable organization. No evidence of any significant independent media coverage of this organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a promotional page, no inherent notability ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:39, 13 November 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  20:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Muffin[edit]

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

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

Non-notable organization. The GNG sources are for its owner only, which doesn't make the organization notable. Also a contest prod. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a single shop that exists. There's nothing that suggests that it's notable, or should be discussed in an encyclopedia for any other reason. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 20 November 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  20:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doist[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find new sources either, that can at least establish general notability before we even go to the broad coverage required for companies WP:CORPDEPTH.  — Ammarpad (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epoque Hotels[edit]

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

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion, but has (IMO inexplicably) previously survived an AfD debate so maybe there's something I'm missing about what appears to be a blatant piece of spam about a non-notable marketing company—bringing it here in case anyone can see a reason to keep it.  ‑ Iridescent 12:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - clearly a promo piece and fails WP:Corp for notability; agree with nom. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Obvious puff piece trying to masquerade as a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete they don't appear to own or operate any hotels, they merely run a website that promotes hotels. There are no secondary references currently or in any version from the past several years. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree. " hotel representation company" not an hotel company. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 13:13, 20 November 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  20:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Friedman[edit]

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

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

notability not established. The article appears to be written like self-promotion. The only sources of reference are the personal websites of Jody Friedman. Aaton77 (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 16 November 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) Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 12:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Carbonell (friar)[edit]

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

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

Re-nominating on behalf of ReeceTheHawk, who nominated the draft at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Father Tomás Carbonell with the rationale: "Relies on one source and isn't long enough to become an article." – Joe (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Contrary to the nomination statement, this stub is actually based on three quality secondary sources, all of which cover Carbonell in reasonable depth, and one primary source that is used sensibly. I would have thought as a royal confessor and bishop his notability would be obvious. There is plenty of room for expansion. – Joe (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A well-sourced - if brief - page on a Bishop. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are additional sources: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. The guy was the confessor of a King of Spain in the 17th century. As Joe pointed out, that's obviously a position of great influence and significant historical relevance. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is so far only a stub, but in Catholic kingdoms, Royal Confessors held an influential position and he was a diocesan bishop, which again implies he was notable. It certainly needs to be tagged as a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have no problem with a short stub on this subject. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability indicated by episcopate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He was a bishop. So clearly should be renamed Tomás Carbonell (bishop)! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meets WP:CLERGY, being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. I agree with the rename to Tomás Carbonell (bishop). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As far as I can tell, this is a case where awhile back a COI account created the page in question as its only edit, so presumably they lost the password and created a new COI account - which is requesting deletion, after being reverted from adding promotional content. Given this, I'm treating this as a G7 case. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Sales and Marketing Management[edit]

Institute of Sales and Marketing Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Institute of Sales Management (talk) 11:02, 13 November 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 November 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Ravish[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely.Nearly G11-able promo-spam.Rubbish promotional-sourcing.I doubt the writing to be affected by COI/PAID. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable musician. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG concerns. Capitals00 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Borg[edit]

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

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

The article, by a brand-new account with no edits to other articles, looks very smooth and finished, even well-referenced, at first glance. However, when reading the article it quickly becomes evident that the subject of the article is not actually notable. He is a software designer who has worked on art projects which have been featured in various publications, but his name is not in any of the secondary sources, except for trivial mentions (see below). As we know, Notability is not inherited. An actor can have a small part in a notable movie - that doesn't make the actor notable. Similarly, a software designer can be part of the team behind a notable artwork - that doesn't make the designer notable. The "Awards" section does not mention any award given to Andreas Borg, only to the installations he has worked on. His name appears in the list of names here and here, which is simply further confirmation that he is not notable. bonadea contributions talk 11:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've left a comment on Acarolnc's talk page making them aware of the guidelines on autobiographies and conflicts of interest, and inviting them to disclose any CoIs. But I agree with the proposer: delete as a non-notable piece of spam ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this is the worst kind of garbage article/puff piece, where references that on first glance appear to be ok don't even contain a mention of the article subject when one investigates! I checked and deleted a half dozen that had no mention whatsoever of the article subject. Notability not inherited, and clearly not established by refs given. This nomination is a good call. I suggest delete and salt, given the extreme effrot someone has gone to to deceive readers.198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most egregious entries was the claim in the infobox that one of his notable works was the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. !!! 198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. References do not match notability claims in article. Ifnord (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article has been edited since nomination. There's currently only one reference, and it doesn't support any claim about the subject of the article. The earlier claims included references such as [19] that don't even mention the subject of the article. I see no reason to keep this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Angel[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely.Nearly G11-able spam.Rubbish promotional-sourcing.I doubt the writing to be affected by COI/PAID. Winged Blades ^Godric 10:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Absolutely no notability. Almost reads like a resume. Ajf773 (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable musician. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Linkedin ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to make the not Linkedin comment, until I saw it had just been made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Dev[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely.Rubbish promotional-sourcing.I doubt the writing to be affected with COI/PAID. Winged Blades ^Godric 10:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable musician. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 14 November 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. I'm not sure if this is the strict definition of WP:SK3, but it's close enough, when combined with the fact that "having WP:REDLINKs" is not anywhere close to in the deletion policy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Building Big[edit]

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

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

Has broken links and isn't really needed on wiki ReeceTheHawk (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. ReeceTheHawk, please familiarise yourself with the deletion policy and WP:ATA before continuing with this spate of nominations. Neither of these are valid reasons for deletion. Building Big is a widely reviewed [20][21][22][23] book by a notable author that was adapted into a Peabody Award-winning television series [24][25]. It clearly meets WP:NBOOK. – Joe (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Learn the difference between article space and template space, Reece. The template (specifically Template:David Macaulay) has the redlinkers, not the actual article, and the book and connected series are clearly notable. Nate • (chatter) 16:17, 13 November 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^(T) 21:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Kawanaka[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY practically.Has played a lone match at the top-tier.Fails WP:GNG wholesomely. Winged Blades ^Godric 10:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades ^Godric 10:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:FOOTY and made his debut in a WP:FPL and is currently playing in a lower division after his team's relegation .SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 20 years old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has played in the Austrian Football First League per this so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully professional league. Kosack (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's pretty clear he passes NFooty having played in a pro league. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NSOCCER/WP:NFOOTY (depending on your location). There is no deadline, leave the stub and hopefully it gets expanded. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:24, 13 November 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  20:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Lloyd destinations[edit]

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

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

This page is completely redundant as all the information contained on this page is already found in the page Aero Lloyd. It is not necessary to have a separate page repeating Aero Lloyd's former destinations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firth m (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Refer to ANI  Nominator has plagiarized (copyvio) User:Zaps93 and others with this edit and now wants to use AfD to hide the evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word(s) you're looking for are "copying without attribution", not "plagarism". Also please assume good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So just another fun day deleting the work of other editors and claiming it as your own and getting an administrator to defend your effort?  You seem to think this is kiddie land.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is really quite important. It's the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug". It isn't plagarism. I never said it wasn't copyvio. And if you had looked you would have noticed that I removed it from the article, not "defended" it. Next time double-check before accusing someone like that, please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you don't understand the definition of the word "plagiarism", and also don't know how to spell it, maybe you should look it up.  I suggest Merriam-Webster.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I entirely understand the definition of the word, and I also understand you've never made a typo. Seriously, please don't make personal attacks. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Odd then how you made the same typo twice.  And if you understand the word "plagiarism", then you should understand that I used the word correctly in my first post.  Do you have a problem with referring this incident to ANI?  Unscintillating (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • In the dictionary sense, yes. In the Wikipedia sense, I disagree. But there's no point in ANI-ing this argument over the use of two terms that, in this case, amount to "potayto" vs. "potahto" (the article is unsuitable, either way). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Aero Lloyd. Obvious WP:CFORK. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the 'fork' was due to copying without attribution, and has been removed from Aero Lloyd due to that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Aero Lloyd. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to merge this. Wikipedia is not a directory. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of airlines have similar content to this. I wouldn't object to replacing the table with a summary of its contents, but I'm not going to do that work, and don't particularly expect anyone else to do so at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true, but that's not relevant to this article, and most of those - especially for defunct airlines - should probably have that trimmed as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]