< 8 October	10 October >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dave Puzak[edit]

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

Virtually unsourced WP:BLP of a musician, whose only evident claim of notability is as a session performer on an album by another musician. This is not an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass for a musician, but he doesn't get over WP:GNG either as the only source here is a glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage of the other musician he sessioned for. Literally the only reason I'm not speedying this as an A7 is because it's been floating under the radar since 2005. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - no coverage found to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 01:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete that such a low quality article on such a clearly non-notable musician has existed for 12 years is very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Snow/Speedy delete as an apparently deliberate violation of the WP TOu and WP:COI, and of the basic policy NOT PROMOTIONAL. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brabble[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

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

The article written by SPA Ralum23 reads like an advertorial and has all the hallmarks of a salaried or commissioned work created in deliberate anticipation of the product launch. The numerous routine reports used as sources do not afford notability to a start-up that hasn't even started up. In the words of guideline WP:SPAM: 'advertisements masquerading as articles' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: The previous deletion was for a hoax, 12 years ago. The page name is a coincidence and is completely unrelated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOT. Dysklyver 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. It claims it's in beta. No coverage other than press releases so far. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete there is nothing notable about this company; nothing to learn from that goes toward our mission of providing readers with accepted knowledge. This is because there is a lack of independent sources with substantial of the company. This is just a directory entry with factoids to promote the company. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. And run a CU on the creator who is obviously not a new account and an undisclosed paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. The article's current references makes the subject appear to be covered in reliable sources but is only mentioned in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Administrator note A history merge from Draft:Brabble was performed after this AfD started - the final presentation is unchanged. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete excluded by WP:NOTSPAM, as the nomination makes clear. Also not notable to boot. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete after doing some probably misguided cleanup, it's apparent to me this is unsalvageable and at best a WP:TOOSOON. Agree that this has all the classic hallmarks of a paid job against ToS. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect with anyone wishing to merge whatever content necessary, having it available, NAC SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huaxia Edison Chinese School[edit]

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

This article covers a Chinese school that is in no way notable(see WP:GNG) and has no listed sources besides the school's own website. The article itself is a stub and has no additional information of note besides the year it was founded, the schools that hosted it before. I also see that this school is not a public schools, and there are several others public schools in Edison Township and several other towns which are more notable, yet have been deleted(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Adams Middle School (Edison, New Jersey). The unverifiable and at times irrelevant content within the article simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should keep the reference to the school on the Edison Township page under Private Schools(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison,_New_Jersey#Private_schools) and directly provide a link to the school's website.

Thanks. RainWizard29422 (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Chinese schools in the US aren't really private schools, they are more like community classes held on weekends. The article says "is hosted by Edison High School in Edison, New Jersey, United States, every Sunday from 1:00PM to 5:20PM." Timmyshin (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge/redirect a brief mention to ~~Edison High School (New Jersey)~~ Edison, New Jersey. Not notable in its own right but worth a mention ~~in the host school page~~. Just Chilling (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge / redirect to Edison, New Jersey The school isn't notable and the primary connection is to the place where it's located, not the school building where it rents space. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rizwan Koita[edit]

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

Listed news sources are not the needed substantial significant coverage and mere announcements and notices aren't actual in-depth coverage, and republished ones to serve the company are easy to find and is the case here. Applied policies here are WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy and, as obvious as can be, a "Young Achiever" is a locally given one therefore Indiscriminate. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No depth of coverage, mostly localized announcements.Earnsthearthrob (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- being a CEO of CitiusTech, which has been deleted three times, is hardly a claim of significance. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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.

Hello, Brother[edit]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This movie doesn't seem to have any indepth coverage in non-database reliable sources, which means that it fails WP:NMOVIE and WP:GNG. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep added roughly 20 (mostly Korean) newspaper articles about production, release, and reception. Mainly notable for its odd fundraising model. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per the improvements made to the article. The depth of coverage is significant, as is the fact that it was the second highest grossing films. Appears to now meet WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 The Sky Is Falling (2000 film). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brad Hall (producer)[edit]

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

Fails all four points of WP:NCREATIVE. Not "widely cited by peers or successors"; not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"; not a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work...the primary subject of an independent and notable work"; not subject of "a significant monument" etc. Also just happens to be the work of the Jeremy112233 sockfarm. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~ I reviewed this nomination critically but could not establish that the producer was notable for sources in the article or elsewhere. If things change, do let me know. Checking notability for this person is hindered by the better known Brad Hall. gidonb (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Redirect' to The Sky Is Falling (2000 film), his one feature film. gidonb (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Ifnord (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wattu[edit]

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

Contested prod. Subject appears to fail GNG due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were not successful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nom. Greenbörg (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom lacks references .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist^un Eins ^uno 16:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexandra Charles[edit]

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

Non-notable nightclub owner. Part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of articles about non-notable topics created by an editor with an obvious WP:COI, see this thread at COIN for details. This article is sourced to a single Swedish newspaper article and the subject's autobiography, which is itself extremely obscure (A worldcat search finds it in one library, in Sweden). The article creator has a record of making deceptive citations, and when I do an independent search for this person I find next to nothing. No evidence this person meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO, etc. and in itself owning a popular nightclub (assuming it even was as popular as this article claims) is not a noteworthy achievement. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment I guess that the only reason as to why you can find Alexandra on the Rocks in Libris is due to a legal deposit. In Sweden you are forced to send one copy to the The National Library of Sweden. It does not show notability. Dnm (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - very well known person in Sweden. A simple google search comes up with plenty of hits. Sources in article are ok. she passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BabbaQ: If sources are that easy to find, I'm sure you can link some for us? Fyddlestix (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added two to the article with expansion of the article as well. So yeah you can be sure :). BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - although the suspicions are perfectly understandable, this is a notable figure. A book was written about her in 2014, and she recieved a medal from the King in 2015. I have added some sources to the article. /Elzo 90 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elzo 90 and BabbaQ: Thank you for providing those sources! I can see that she is notable and withdraw the nomination. I did do my WP:BEFORE but i think my lack of Swedish (and maybe google screening out Swedish-language results?) did me in here. Apologies for the time wasted but it's good that the article actually demonstrates notability now. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Alex Shih, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vista Land[edit]

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

PROD removed. Completely promotional article, no indication of any notability except for primary, self-published, sources Ajf773 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion for strong promotional tone and lack of third-party sources. Alexius08 (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. ferret's arguments have not been disputed. The title of the page can be hashed out in a move discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sniper Elite (series)[edit]

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

Although the games in the series are notable for their own article, the series itself is not. Lordtobi (✉) 19:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep I'm going to start as a weak keep on this. Reviews and announcements for the various games, and coverage of the developer itself, constantly refer to the series as a whole. News that the series had sold 10 million copies total was carried by multiple RS's. Reviews and news about the various games refer to their features in terms of what the "series" is known for. All that aside, if no one else agrees, then I think it would be better to rename as "List of Sniper Elite games" than to delete. In many cases, these series articles are akin to list-style articles, and the games are definitely discussed as a set. -- ferret (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to Sniper Elite - Per series page guidelines and WP:NATURAL, the current Sniper Elite should be moved to Sniper Elite: Berlin 1945._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with move, per our series guidelines, especially as there is a novel based on the first game (Giving the series a non-game related media item). However, I'm not sure if the first game should use a little known subtitle as disamb. Sniper Elite (2005 video game) may be more appropriate. We can hash that after AFD is done. -- ferret (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it would just be Sniper Elite (video game) per typical naming scheme but that also would be fine._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't a move discussion. That can be decided after we determine whether the article should exist first. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge/move Earnsthearthrob (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oliver Andrade[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. The cited sources (mostly very low quality) barely mention him, and I can't find any more substantial coverage. The only source really worth considering is this, which purports to be an extract from an obituary in the Times of India, but it contains very little biographical detail that would be of any actual use in writing an article – and one source doesn't pass the GNG. – Joe (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 Cosmetic dentistry. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smilorexia[edit]

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

Not notable Natureium (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at WT:MED. —Paleo Neonate – 08:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No notable neologism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Cosmetic dentistry. Some information about why people undergo non-functional dental procedures would be appropriate for that article. ==Motivations== would probably be a reasonable subject heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete this is a book advertisement hiding under a pop culture neologism. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per WAID's rational.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The term appears to have only been used by the author of or in connection with the book mentioned. The lack of coverage in other contexts casts significant doubt on the subject's notability. Commander Spock (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge Half a sentence does not a book advertisment make. If the advertising is so undercover I can't see it its a poor ad. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 Deja Voodoo (New Zealand band). MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We Are Deja Voodoo[edit]

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

An unsourced stub with a track listing -- and for good reason: there are no reliable sources I could find in a recent search. Hence it fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Nothing here - info should just be included on artist page. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Deja Voodoo (New Zealand band). Non notable. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 Waltons (band). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Todd Lumley[edit]

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

Does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. No independent in-depth coverage either in the references or on Google search. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Non-notable per nomination. reddogsix (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Journeyman musician who has been a member of various bands of differing degrees of notability, but not independently notable. References are all of him in context of one band or another. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Waltons (Canadian band). Every musician who exists does not automatically get a standalone article as a separate topic from his band — he needs to attain his own independent notability for his own activity outside the band, such as releasing albums as a solo artist, before he gets a separate article. But what we have here is a musician who was a member of one notable band, and has otherwise been a session musician for other artists since then — which is not how a musician gets notable enough for a standalone bio. As well, this is an WP:AUTOBIO written by the subject himself, and even a person who does meet our notability standards still doesn't get to put himself into Wikipedia per our conflict of interest rules. Nothing here constitutes an WP:NMUSIC pass, and he doesn't pass WP:GNG either as he isn't the subject of any of the sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Waltons (band). I can't find in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article, so it seems reasonable to instead redirect this to the band of which he was a member. gongshow talk 07:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alem (beatboxer)[edit]

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

I prodded this one a few days ago. Failed GNG, the "world championship" doesn't seem notable in itself. It was deprodded with someone saying more RS exists out there, I tried to look and I didn't find much. Some small sources, some in French, some tangential stuff. Still fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. Possibly enough French coverage found from a Google search - I suspect a competent French editor could find more: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment I don't speak French, but it seems like #3 is about a festival and #5 is a quasi-broken link (it's just a paragraph with a video that's been blocked). There might be more out there, but it seems pretty borderline. Plus, if there was more out there, it probably would have gone up after the prod since this article was on the fence. South Nashua (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Mentions, not enough for GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete. The FrWiki version of this article is not replete with reliable sources. Don't think this one gets a GNG pass. A Train^talk 19:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar[edit]

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

This institute does not yet exist. It is in the planning stages, and has not received sufficient coverage for notability under the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Came across this during npp, seems a bit WP:TOOSOON as well. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delte npot yet notable; it probably will be, and can be written when there is something to say. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 by PhilKnight. Reason: WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of mayors of Piqua Ohio[edit]

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

Not relevant enough Sithlordadler (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for List of mayors of Piqua OhioReply[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD-G7. Only non-creator edit was to PROD the article, since blankled before being brought up here. Ham tech person 21:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hwebul[edit]

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

Dictionary definition, violates WP:DICDEF. Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Not only is it a dictionary definition, but it isn't even an English term, or a term used in English. And this is the English Wikipedia. The topic of "Buddhist statue destruction" may be notable but I am not seeing coverage on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There are sources about this phenomenon, e.g. Tedesco, Frank (1997). "Questions for Buddhist and Christian Cooperation in Korea". Buddhist–Christian Studies. 17: 179–195. JSTOR 1390412.. And the article title is not a deletion issue, that's why we have WP:RM. On the other hand, the article needs to be rewritten from scratch anyway to address WP:SPS and WP:SYN, so absent a complete rewrite WP:TNT seems appropriate. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. per WP:DICDEF and not a word in English.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. A snowball ‘keep’ here as the article has been merged into another and it is necessary to retain the edit history for the attribution of edits. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Havok discography[edit]

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

Short discography article with few third party references, PROD reverted. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy keep. Needs to be merged into the band article as the nominator has already been advised. There is no argument for deletion here. --Michig (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has been merged. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Tom Petty[edit]

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

Short awards list with one reference, PROD reverted. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, obviously substantial enough to merit a split; the nomination's description of it as "short" is just bizarre. And the number of references currently in the article is irrelevant, that obviously can be improved for any notable awards (and the year, name, and provider of a notable award is arguably sourcing in and of itself). postdlf (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I don't see an issue with the article size; a split seems reasonable given the length of Tom Petty's article. In regards to references, they can be improved as desired. For example, I added Grammy.com, BillboardMusicAwards.com, and a recent Washington Post article that goes into detail about some of Petty's MTV Music Award nominations. gongshow talk 05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - The length of the original article plus this article seem to warrant a split. Thus, this article should be kept and not merged. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 12:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - seems to be enough here to justify a separate article. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alison Rich[edit]

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

Contested Prod .Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR .Non notable film career and non notable SNL writer upcoming at best a case of WP:TOOSOON Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete college newspapers covering grads of that college are generally not considered fully indepdent or reliable sources, so we really lack enough indepth to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is basically a WP:SNOW close, as there is a clear consensus to keep at this time, and no realistic chance that a consensus to delete will overtake it. bd2412 T 21:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of songs recorded by Tom Petty[edit]

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

Short unreferenced list of songs Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. An album is a reference for the songs it contains, and none of the information present currently goes beyond those basic facts of credits, track length, etc. This obviously could be expanded further, the discussion should continue based on whether it should be, not on its current state as the nomination wrongly implies (see WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE). postdlf (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per standard practice (there is a massive category of lists of songs recorded by artists). I'm surprised this page is incomplete however and can only wonder if there is a nearest equivalent that we can just merge with or redirect to. Ajf773 (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - as of now there are 174 similar articles. If these articles are deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia then that should be the subject of a broader debate. As long as "Songs recorded by..." is deemed a suitable Wikipedia article subject I see no basis to delete this, as there are plenty of sources for Tom Petty's songs, such as [7]. Rlendog (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply - "List of songs" articles are generally created when the amount of work is sizable, and a sufficiently large page can be created. In this case, the page that exists is small, unreferenced, and needs a great deal of work before it can be suitable for Wikipedia. At this point, it is fairly redundant to Tom Petty discography. BTW, is anyone going to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bebe & Bassy Tour? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Everything you just said just contradicts the discussion so far without responding to it. Are you just completely unfamiliar with the subject? Because it should be obvious otherwise that "a sufficiently large page can be created" for an internationally famous musician with a recording career that spanned four decades (see also Category:Songs written by Tom Petty, with around 50 articles on individual songs). We don't delete pages just because they "need a great deal of work", because deletion doesn't get that work done. We work on them and expand them. Please do your due diligence and make sure your further comments demonstrate an awareness of both the content and the policies cited above. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply - @Postdlf:, for many articles, WP:IDEALSTUB does apply. However, for lists like this, if they are small enough, they can be merged until they become large enough to split. This article is six months old, is still short, and can be merged into another page, or deleted. Should every artist have a page with all of their songs on it? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We aren't talking about "every artist", we're talking about this one. Or at least everyone else is. You did not attempt nor propose a merge, and we would never delete if merger was a valid option (again, that's in the policies you need to read), but that's moot anyway as consensus is to keep as a separate page and expand, and my support is to keep as well. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and expand. Obviously, Tom Petty has a large number of songs that can be added to this list. If it doesn't get expanded after some time, a bold redirect to Tom Petty discography is not unwarranted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and expand and redirect if necessary, as per Starcheer... List of Tom Petty songs would be notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - While the community still hasn't come to a clear cut standard on how to handle these "List of songs by artist" type lists, it generally believe that it's acceptable when its a musician with a lot of notable, charting songs, and not acceptable when a musician only has a few notable songs. Wherever you draw the line, its pretty hard to make the argument that a decade spanning, multi-band, prolific artist like Tom Petty would fall on the "only a few notable songs" side of things. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - This article does need a lot of work in order to be brought up to an acceptable level. With that said, it has been over six months since the article has had ANY major additions to it. Perhaps the article should be merged until it grows long enough to split. Furthermore, Petty's albums do not constitute a third party reference. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Customers Bank[edit]

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

Non-notable bank with only primary sources. The text appears to be a copy paste direct from homepage. PRehse (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- Apparent COI, SPA. Rhadow (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete~~~~Speedy~~ delete: as a copyvio! (Previous rationale: created by a single purpose account. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Note for admin: if the outcome is delete BankMobile is a redirect which will need to be deleted as well.) Thanks, DrStrauss talk 21:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The copyvio is revertable but this "article" is, and always has been, spam for an unremarkable company. MER-C 08:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Given recent improvements which swung several former delete !votes, I'm finding that there's at least a narrow consensus to keep here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob O'Dekirk[edit]

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

Has only one reference, which is not a WP:RS (patch.com). Lacks notability or context. Lacks content. GetSomeUtah (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I'll concede the article is poor. I sorta lost interest, BUT O'Dekirk, as the Mayor of a city of 100,000+ meets notability. Have you tried improving it and not found sources?Mpen320 (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, 100,000+ doesn't guarantee a notability or a Wikipedia article. See Mayor Richard Irvin of Aurora, Illinois. Aurora is the second-largest, according to the infobox on O'Dekirk's page. Joliet comes in at #4. This article was flagged for the Wikipedia community some time ago, and no one seems to have interest in improving it, and that's why it's being nominated for deletion. GetSomeUtah (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete O'Dekirk fails WP:NPOL. He has not received "significant press coverage" which is a requirement for "major local political figures" (and I'd even question if O'Dekirk counts as a "major" political figure given there are nearly 500 cities of 100,000+ in India). NPOL states that "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability." AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete~~ - fails WP:SIGCOV. The few news articles I found on the Google are routine coverage of his run for mayor and mundane coverage of local municipal affairs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep after Yngvadottir's excellent work on the article. I'm still not really sure that O'Dekirk meets the notability threshold as (I think) all of these sources are routine local politics coverage, but there's enough of that to suggest passing WP:NOTTEMPORARY. And I suppose WP:OSE: most mayors of American cities of this size have articles, and with respect to AusLondonder, the number of cities of this size in India is completely irrelevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~. Keep per sourcing improvements. Joliet is certainly a large enough city that the article would be kept if it were sourced properly — but mayors of cities, even 100K+, do not get an automatic presumption of notability on the back of just one single piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of their initial investiture ceremony in the local media. Everybody who's ever been mayor of anywhere could always show one piece of local media coverage about their swearing-in as mayor — so Wikipedia requires more than just that to properly establish any given mayor as notable. If the article had any halfway decent amount of substance and sourcing beyond just stating that he exists, it would be keepable — but there's no real reason to keep it if this as written is all that anybody can actually be arsed to do with him even after he's been in office for two full years. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Bearcat: Have a look at the article now and see whether its now better reflection of the available sources changes your mind. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Yep, better. Changed to keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I trawled through the coverage for the articles that went beyond routine and those that provided biographical information, plus used two official biographies. I believe he's attracted enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep because of the excellent work that Yngvadottir has done to expand and reference the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment After the improvements to the article, I still feel O'Dekirk fails WP:NPOL because the coverage is completely routine local politics coverage from local media. That is not enough for a local political figure to demonstrate notability. There is no in-depth profile pieces from national or international media. The official biographies of him from the city council and a law firm do not contribute to notability, they are primary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joliet has a population of just short of 150,000, so the standards for geographic range of coverage aren't as strict as they would have to be if it had a population of just 500 or 1,000. We accept mayors of major cities as notable, as long as they cite reliable sources and say more than just "he exists, the end" — for a city of this size with a directly elected executive mayor, the coverage doesn't have to nationalize nearly as much as it would for the mayor of a small village. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you tell me what policy or guideline that is based on? AusLondonder (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Joiliet is a suburb of Chicago, not a major regional city. Population alone does not tell us how major a city is. The coverage of O'Dekirk just does not rise above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep 6[edit]

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

fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG no basic Wiki-Notability. Dysklyver 13:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The best I could find is this local write-up; I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. gongshow talk 06:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jordan Samuels-Thomas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player with an undistinguished career in the minor leagues. An actual examination of the sources thrown up in the first AfD (rather than an uncritical "ooo, sources!", something echoed in the second AfD, where the keep votes consisted of citing the result of the first AfD) reveal blog posts and routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from supporting notability, and therefore fails the GNG. Ravenswing 12:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NHOCKEY criteria #2 by playing at least 200 (exactly 200, in fact) games in the AHL including playoffs. Although the criterion doesn't explicitly say postseason games are included, it seems logical that they would be. Smartyllama (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Passing WP:NHOCKEY is a good starting point. Since this player is active, I think its fair that we need to go beyond the SNG, especially since subject meets it on the button (although is playing in AHL this year). On their own, the content from Buffalo Hockey Beat (i.e., the Olean Times Herald) and Connecticut Post are enough for me on their face. Did a search and came across these: [8] and [9]. To me, the stuff in there and what I found go beyond routine - they are feature articles focusing on the subject. In view of what has been found and the SNG being met, I say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the two sources that RonSigPi links are sufficient for WP:GNG. Passes WP:NHOCKEY. Why is this person AfDd every year? gidonb (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per my comments in the 1st AfD, he has full blown articles about him - thus not routine coverage - in several newspapers which are not blogs. Therefore he passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep seems to have sufficient coverage for GNG even if they are somewhat localized. Will also likely (a bit CRYSTAL) hit 200 regular season AHL by the end January 2018, with postseason he is above 200 already. Yosemiter (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pokolgép[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Prod declined by IP for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. Pokolgép seems to be the Hungarian word for bomb or some such so most of the google hits are for that word, not the band. One source I could find, this book from Bloomsbury Publishing, is a couple mere mentions. I don't think Encyclopaedia Metallum is a reliable website and I get the impression it might be crowdsourced which fails WP:SPS. The IP that de-PRODed this failed to read the edit summary, not that they would have understood it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changing to Keep As Ary points out, the band charted. That's WP:NBAND. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for @Chris troutman: you wrote that "The IP that de-PRODed this failed to read the edit summary, not that they would have understood it." What do you think I did not understand? Anyway I agree with Robman94, the band is notable in Hungary but not in the States.--2001:4C4E:1D41:8C00:75F5:584A:7CEF:3494 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be advised, your ping didn't work. I misspoke. TenPoundHammer didn't say anything in the edit summary; it was in the PROD template, which said "No sources found". I guess that wasn't super explanatory. I apologize for jumping the gun on that. I was wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment This Google search might be better as it includes the guitarist's name, as he's the sole member that has been in the band throughout its history. It certainly brings back lots of articles, but they're in Hungarian so I can't sort them out. On the surface though, it would appear that the band is notable in Hungary but not in the States. Robman94 (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Pokolgép is definitely notable in Hungary. They were the first heavy metal band in their country who officially released an LP, so that was the first officially released heavy metal album in Hungary (Totális Metal, 1986). Pokolgép is one of the major metal bands in their country. They sing in Hungarian, but they are familiar in Europe. In 2011 Swedish band Hammerfall covered Pokolgép song "Hol van a szó" in English, titled "Send Me a Sign". This cover was released on their album Infected. --Ary (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Ary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Beyond the fact that YouTube fails WP:SPS, it doesn't matter who covered the song. Please read WP:MUSICBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of English references doesn't mean that this band is not notable. There are lots of refs in Hungarian. Somehow you don't want to understand it. And I just want to demonstrate that Pokolgép are known beyond Hungary when I mentioned Hammerfall cover. --Ary (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment As I read WP:MUSICBIO I found that Pokolgép meet the notability criteria "2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." This is the Official Hungarian Album Chart search page: http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/kereso-eloado-cim-szerint Fill in "Pokolgép" and push the search button "Keresés". They had 12 albums on Hungarian Album Chart. Pokolgép also meet the criteria "12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." See the documentary "Privát rocktörténet" I put in as a reference in the article. It was broadcasted on Filmmúzeum Televízió (Filmmuseum Television) in Hungary. --Ary (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, a prominent heavy metal band behind the Iron Curtain, its notability is confirmed by GB results. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Norden1990: Not only is your argument (WP:GHITS) invalid, did you read my comment about the fact that this word in Hungarian will pop up in lots of places, unconnected with the band? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that is why I used "Pokolgép heavy metal" search words. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Norden1990: Ok. Which one of those links is a reliable source? You'll need several to meet WP:SIGCOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - per Norden1990's Google link. Robman94 (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: the band may be notable, but many of the past and present members have poorly referenced articles of their own, and I suspect these are not notable. Richard3120 (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 12:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Luc Beausoleil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD in 2014 marred by a good bit of (inaccurate) wikilawyering, so let's set up some disclaimers up front: to wit, playing in the Alpenliga does not (nor ever has) satisfy the requirements of NHOCKEY. Winning a second-team all-star citation in the junior amateur leagues does not (nor ever has) satisfy the requirements of NHOCKEY. Playing a lot of games in the now-defunct Central Hockey League does not (nor ever has) satisfy the requirements of NHOCKEY. Nothing the player did in his career, in fact, satisfies NHOCKEY, part and parcel of the article creator's oeuvre of making many hundreds of articles in open defiance of notability standards, for which he was eventually community banned from new article creation. We're left, therefore, with the GNG, and there is no evidence beyond routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE that the subject meets it. Ravenswing 12:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep was a First-Team All-Star in 2000 in the CHL. See [10]. This satisfies WP:NHOCKEY criterion #3. In fairness, this wasn't in the article. I will add it shortly. Smartyllama (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The article has now been edited to reflect the fact that the subject passes WP:NHOCKEY. Smartyllama (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment: @Smartyllama: an election to an All-Star Game's starting lineup does not pass #3, it must be an end-of-season First Team. Over a dozen people go to the all-star game, but only six make a First team. Yosemiter (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - @Yosemiter: - If you read the source, that All-Star game was played against the All-Stars from the QJHL. So while there would have been 12 starters in that game, only six would have been from the CHL. Smartyllama (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - And in any case, per [11], he is third in the league in career goals, so he passes anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - @Smartyllama: I was pointing out that you were extrapolating NHOCKEY #3 from what it explicitly states. You can easily find many past discussions that unless NHOCKEY addresses an award directly, then it is not included and therefore a player must pass GNG on their own merit. There are no "equivalent" awards to be assumed. Although to be fair (and why I have not yet come to a conclusion on this player), the CHL is a bit problematic for #3 as it does not appear to have had All-CHL teams prior to 2005, at least per these stats pages. (Also they played the West Coast Hockey League, not the QJHL(sp?). They also had fans vote for who started, so it could be viewed as a popularity award.)
        In regards to the "Top-10 career scorer", it depends on your interpretation. Since the player was in the league from its inception, and was a top scorer in one season, he was at one point a top-10 scorer in the league (your source is from 2003, he has since been passed.) When the league ended in 2014, he was 13th in career scoring and 7th in goals. Take that as you will. Yosemiter (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - (sighs) This is just the sort of argument that went on in the first AfD. @Smartyllama:, NHOCKEY is quite explicit, and it's been changed and changed again to try to weed out these "interpretation" stunts people keep throwing out there. NHOCKEY is met by an end-of-season First Team All-Star in the appropriate leagues. NOT a conference all-star, NOT playing in the all-star game, First Team league-wide All-Star. Period. "Top-ten career scorer" doesn't mean "goals" scorer, "assists" scorer, "shorthanded goals" scorer, "penalty minutes" scorer or anything of the sort: it means points, period. The subject just does not meet Criterion #3. Ravenswing 14:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Thanks for correcting me about the definition of "scoring." I'll admit I'm not as familiar with hockey terminology as I am with other sports. In any case, he was fifth in career points according to the same citation, so it still counts. Maybe he's not in the top 10 anymore, but notability is not temporary. If he would have met the current notability standards in 2003, he's still notable, and will continue to be forever unless the standards (not just the all-time leaders) change. Obviously some common sense has to apply - the first ten goal scorers in league history probably aren't notable even though they, however briefly, were in the Top 10, but that's obviously not the case here. He was in the Top 10 for a substantial period of time well into the league's history. That would have made him notable then, assuming we had the current standards in place, and if that's the case, he's still notable now. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        There is a problem with citing that particular source as a basis for passing NHOCKEY, simply the totals are incorrect. For some reason the internet hockey database has the same error where some stats from a different league are added in together. Not a huge difference, but problematic if you want to be definite.18abruce (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Passes NHOCKEY.BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep I have to say I have some reluctance in this, but he quite plainly did meet criterion #3 of WP:NHOCKEY. At the time of his final season in the CHL (1999-2000) he was ranked 3rd all-time in points. That was the eighth season of a small league, I am not fully convinced how "pre-eminent" that really is, but he did remain in the top ten until 2010-11 season when he was pushed out by that household name Sébastien Thinel.18abruce (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Very Weak Delete:~~ Similar to 18bruce, I am not fully convinced about the pre-eminent honor of being a top scorer in a young league and then eventually getting pushed out. So I will ignore NHOCKEY for now. Based on GNG I found this non-primary, non-local article that, while short, is about him and I will give that as a single source towards GNG. However, since his prime playing days were in the late 90s, it is possible and perhaps likely that there were print articles that I have not found in the archives, especially in the Tulsa region. If someone can find one article significantly about him that is not just a signing or WP:ROUTINE game coverage, I think I could easily flip to keep. Either way though, this is one of the less offensively bad player articles created by Dolovis.Yosemiter (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There's this. It's local, but I'd argue a number retirement is non-routine and it's certainly non-primary. Smartyllama (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Seems just barely good enough then. As I said, there probably are a couple in print as well somewhere. My typical thinking is all local coverage is good for one GNG source and at least one other non-local source at least points towards GNG (but that is just my opinion on GNG interpretation). Yosemiter (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NHOCKEY. gidonb (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jan Hilary[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. As per WP:BEFORE a search on the web threw up nothing of interest [12]. One of the sources is very vague, "my models" is it a book, a song, a magazine ? And one photo-shoot over 30 years ago does not make him notable. Domdeparis (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment No objection. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep - jan hilary is a well known male model. The srticle is bad. But that can all be fixed. A simple Google search gives good sources. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please can you add the sources here that you have found. Domdeparis (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have so far added sources to prove his work in Paris as a model.BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are not in depth secondary sources as per WP:GNG just proof that he has done some modeling. Did you find anything else? Domdeparis (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I haven't found any sources that establish notability (but i concede that it can be hard to find relevant sources considering when he started his career). The sources in the article aren't really independent of the subject, and they are not secondary sources. Icepic appears to be a personal website, not a WP:RS. Sjö (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete no show of notable coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashwani Sharma[edit]

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

Subject is a recently elected local council election winner. All reliable sources about the subject have one-line mentions (either in the list of winners or literally one line about his campaigning). I could not retrieve any in-depth significant reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:GNG; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Lourdes 12:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. While Gurgaon appears to be a large and prominent enough city that a properly written and properly sourced article about a city councillor would probably be kept, city councillors don't get an automatic presumption of notability just because their existence has been namechecked in routine coverage of the overall election. If even one source here were an actual "meet your new councillor" profile of Sharma as an individual, I'd vote keep — but there hasn't been any evidence shown that such coverage exists yet. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this — but as currently written and sourced, it's a candidate for the WP:TNT treatment. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete being a member of a city council is a burgoning suburb of a capital city is not enough to give default notability without quality sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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: The previous AfD for this article was also held on WP:N grounds and concluded keep. Since there have been no changes in the notability of the article's subject matter, any further discussions on whether to delete this page on notability grounds ought to go via WP:DRV as per WP:DPAFD, as continued AfDs on the same grounds with no change in substance are disruptive regardless of whether or not they are made in good faith. However, reviewers may wish to note that all users below arguing in favour of deletion are relatively new accounts and even possible sockpuppets, calling good faith into question. (non-admin closure) Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 19:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Austenasia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not pass WP:GNG. The article includes large amounts of information not mentioned in what appears to be little more than passing references in articles commenting on their important to a minor online micronational community. This article is plainly an exercise in self-aggrandizement that has been previously kept through nothing more than people quickly scanning through the references list and assuming that the sources are enough to qualify it for WP:GNG. The sources do not contain enough information to justify and article and the majority of its contents is original research. Guys, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm a micronationalist myself, and I can tell you for a fact that Austenasia does not even approach notability, and anyone who has taken the time to analyse the sources in the Reflist is likely to agree with me. PenaltyCard (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT: I've quickly gone through and I think I've taken out all the original research and primary sources, which accounted for about 30% of the article's content (by number of bytes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenaltyCard (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT 2: I've posted what I see as a reasonable summary, as of 10/10/17, below. PenaltyCard (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Austenasia is nowhere near notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page of their own. --Mahuset (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Page has enough sources to meet WP:GNG, see other deletion nominations. Jerome501 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep - As noted above, the page has more than enough references. I recognize the two users who have nominated and voted for deletion, respectively, and I believe this is a spill-over from a personal spat in the micronational community. Austenasia has articles written about it in international and local newspapers, and has been included in books etc. It has more notability than many others with articles on Wikipedia; please see the former deletion nominations. Information was recently deleted from the article which is included in some of the references. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Argumentum ad hominem is not a valid refutation. Could you please provide me with some examples of reliable secondary sources that contain enough material to qualify under WP:GNG as enough to warrant a whole article? Thanks :) PenaltyCard (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per the arguments presented above. Austenasia is well-enough known and there are enough mentions of it in the national British press. Cipika (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I won't insult the administrators' intelligence by pretending that they don't know how this works - this page was clearly written as an attempt at self-promotion by Austenasia, hence the large amounts of original research and details about their micronation (not mentioned in the sources) that I removed. In the words of User:JamesBWatson, an administrator, "Nobody is free to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, whether they are "in the news" or not"^[1]
  - But most of what you removed wasn't "original research"; it was included in the sources referenced, and so I've restored it. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PenaltyCard (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep- I believe that the page has enough references to have a wikipedia page. Farrare (Farrare) 17:34,9 October 2017 (UTC+1)
- Could you elaborate? I believe in my nomination I specifically criticised contributors to previous AfD discussions for simply seeing that there were a number of references and voting keep. PenaltyCard (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Yes, but you didn't really elaborate as to why each specific reference was invalid. Knowing that you nominated this page for deletion because of personal reasons, I'd recommend that you quit this whole gig now before this gets any worse. Jerome501 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Argumentum ad hominem is not a valid refutation, and besides, I'm here because I like AfD and policy application in a vaguely ghoulish sense ;), take at look at my User Contributions. PenaltyCard (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I agree with PenaltyCard's argument that Austenasia is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, its only references are newspaper articles which the administrators have said is not enough to warrant an article and its own website. I don't see why Austenasia is any more notable than other hobby micronations. --Gawyn Harowcal (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It's interesting that this account seems to have been made solely to vote on this page. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources, previous deletion nominations have resulted in the decision to keep. Article can be improved with some changes: too much based on MicroWiki and there are more references in the Telegraph and a Polish newspaper. They were also present at the Polination Conference in London in 2012. After some research: the micronation of the user who nominated this article for deletion has a dispute with Jonathan Austen. This nomination is the result of a personal and not encyclopedian reasons. --

Delle89 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Even in the unlikely event that this was nominated based on a grudge the points are still valid. Austenasia is not a notable micronation, it only got a couple articles in a local newspaper which, as has been repeatedly stated, is not enough to merit a wikipedia article. Myself and PenaltyCard both have a valid reason to be here; the only argument for Keep is that there are references, which have already been proven invalid. Therefore anyone supporting the keeping of this article is either a member or a friend of a member of Austenasia vying for self aggrandisement. If Austenasia wants to have an article it can write on MicroWiki which is owned by Austenasia's emperor. Gawyn Harowcal (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Creating new accounts to influence this vote will not help, I Googled your username and you're also a member of the same micronation. I prefer comments and votes from non-micronationalists. --Delle89 (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - To clarify, this debate has gained some exposure within the micronation purely because he looked over my shoulder whilst I was typing it and thought Austenasia's having a page was ridiculous. He's a part of the micronation because we know one another, and it's through that, not micronationalism, that he became involved.
    - Might I point out that this sort of pointless self promotion is one of the reasons for the negative view in my micronation of Austenasia. Also the above comment is correct, I support Delete in my capacity as a wikipedian, not as a micronationalist and certainly not as a Glastieven, I would actually be happy to try to resolve the problems between our nations but that is a topic for another site. Gawyn Harowcal (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment (supporting Delete) - As far as I can determine, the two primary arguments in favour of keeping this article are thus: that the nomination is invalid because in the view of User:Qwertyuiop1994, it is purely personal; and that the article has reliable coverage in secondary sources that is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I have been invited to expand my refutation of these two arguments, a process which I will now undergo.

The first point is clearly invalid: argumentum ad hominem is not a valid refutation of our argument. It is, granted, information that the administrators might find useful, however, so I would provide them with the following additional guidance. Both User:Delle89 and User:Qwertyuiop1994 are also micronationalists, and the latter was also involved in the so-called "dispute," which was in mid-August, and is according to his own logic only here for personal reasons. This warning here would seem to suggest that User:Qwertyuiop1994 is closely involved with Austenasia: ^[2]. I don't think that this is relevant, as I believe that he is here for the same reason I am - to argue for what he believes is the correct application of Wikipedia policy. However, I would just like to have it known that, should he attempt to invalidate my nomination through childish ad hominem techniques, that he himself is in exactly the same position of supposed non-neutrality.

The second point appears on the surface to hold validity. However, I do not believe that the sources provided in the article are sufficient justification for a Wikipedia article. Of the references that appear to be reliable secondary sources, the following are broken links: ^[3]^[4]^[5]. I am also unable to analyse ^[6], but as it is a trvia book, I expect that any reference to Austenasia will be little more than a passing note or comment. That leaves us with six remaining references to newspapers. Only three of these provide more information than a passing reference. Moving to a side point for a second, this article was clearly written by Austenasia with the intention of self-endorsement, or depending on your inclination, self-aggrandisement. The article contained large amounts of unreferenced details about Austenasia that could only have been written by an expert in the country, and the wording was near-identical to the country's article on MicroWiki, a website owned by Austenasia's emperor. In the words of User:JamesBWatson, a Wikipedia administrator specialising in anti-vandalism, "Nobody is free to use Wikipedia for self-promotion,

whether they are "in the news" or not."^[7]. Another admin in 2010 also warned User:Qwertyuiop1994 that Austenasia was non-notable: ^[8], but this is a weaker strand of my argument and I would invite refutation of my stronger points also.

This article was clearly created by Austenasia to self-promote their nation based on one or two brief references in books and larger newspapers, likely based on automatic web searches that found their minor news articles, and a few longer articles in the national news that have been used to try to justify their continued self-promotion through our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the place for this.

PenaltyCard (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iqbal Mahmoud Al Assad[edit]

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

She received some coverage in 2013 after graduating as a doctor at the age of 20. She was also included (82 of 100) in Arabic 2016 - Global Influence list which generated relatively minor coverage. Doesn't meet GNG (or any medicine specific cat). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Al Asaad - a deletion discussion on a clone of this article (which closed as speedy A10, but consensus there seemed to be to Delete regardless of the duplicate) Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Just a young doctor.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Too Soon. gidonb (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete On seeing this my first reaction was "didn't I already participate in this deletion discussion." It took close reading to figure out this was a clone article. Early career doctors are never notable, and the vast majority of medical doctors never become notable. Nothing even approaching a claim to notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Superdiversity[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Dictionary - and there is nothing academic or useful here that could not be easily included in one of the other articles on Diversity. Adding 'super' to a topic doesn't make it a new topic, it just makes it part of the original topic that could be validly discussed on the main topic page if applicable. Dysklyver 10:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pavlenko Article: I challenge anyone to read Pavlenko's paper. I think the criticisms make the page worthwhile. After all, this is a concept that attracts a lot of funding. Yonk (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Yonk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

I have read the paper and now am even more certain that adding 'super' to a word does not make it a new topic. There is nothing here that has not been considered by scholars of 'ordinary' diversity. Dysklyver 21:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 10:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 10:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as clearly meeting our notability criteria, with thousands of Google Scholar results for the term. This source explains how the concept differs from diversity, according to its proponents. I could be persuaded to support a more precise merge proposal, but the concept is notable and should be covered somewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep. Cited and discussed beyond a single paper: [13]. And Karel Arnaut; Martha Sif Karrebæk; Massimiliano Spotti; Jan Blommaert (24 November 2016). Engaging Superdiversity: Recombining Spaces, Times and Language Practices. Channel View Publications. pp. 1979–. ISBN 978-1-78309-681-7.. The nominator doesn't seem to have looked even at the first google results (the cited book makes it clear this is notable, and it is the FIRST hit in Google books for that term). WP:TROUT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Whilst I share the nom's disdain for needless superlatives, superdiversity has become a notable topic in sociolinguistics different from diversity. A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows many reliable sources in GBooks and GScholar. Here is a chapter on the topic in a Routledge handbook that serves as a good review: Budach, Gabriele; Saint-Georges, Ingrid de (2017). Superdiversity and language. Routledge Handbooks Online. p. Chapter 3. ISBN 9781138801981.. --Mark viking (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Young night drifters[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEO/WP:DICTDEF. Could perhaps have selected content merged to another article like Loitering. Dysklyver 10:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 10:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 10:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Good sources. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:GNG is not the issue - its a dictionary definition and fails WP:NOT, specifically the WP:NEO/WP:DICTDEF sections. Dysklyver 14:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Sourcing is out there, including Academic sources - e.g. - [14] [15] [16] [17]. Could possibly be merged with Curfew or Loitering as country specific, or be given a generic term and Hong-Kong at the end (e.g. Night time loitering in Hong Kong) - but the content definitely should be kept.Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Clearly not a dicdef article, and has its own Hong Kong-centric context and references to support an article standing alone from Curfew &c. Passes GNG and sourcing is impeccable. What more could we ask for? A Train^talk 18:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This patently does more than providing a simple definition, as shown by the sourcing in the article. That sourcing also confirms notability easily. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the article does more than give a dictionary description. It describes a social phenomenon that has been termed with a specific phrase. It does so in a similar style to the article Hipster (contemporary subculture) or Chav. There seem plenty of sources on young night drifters around, so I am sure the sourcing tag can also be easily addressed. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scipio ERP[edit]

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

Non-notable software (run-of-the-mill ERP system). Article contains no independent sources and no specific claim of notability. A Google search found no reliable sources with independent in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexius08 (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I could not find evidence to show that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 05:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Sepuya[edit]

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

Flagged previously for lacking notability; has not been improved upon since then. References go mostly to dead links, except for a couple primary sources. Appears promotional in nature. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Adequate references exist to establish notability. I really cannot help but notice that the nominator also proposed TWO other articles on black queer artists for deletion (Shari Carpenter and Lola Flash), wihtin an hour of this one.104.163.152.238 (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete WP:ARTIST lays out a 4 point test for evaluating the notability of photographers and other creative professionals. It reads:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Unless O'Doherty or Smyth details Paul Sepuya's importance or citations by his peers, I do not see evidence to support part 1. One of these sources would also need to be used to show a significant new concept or theory for a notability claim under part 2.

There is nothing here about a significant, well-known work co-created by Sepuya, so I cannot support a part 3 claim.

This leaves the options for part 4 of the guideline. If there was significant critical attention, I would expect to see evidence of that within the article. Currently there is none. I would also expect that a significant monument or exhibition would have coverage. The only museum that is independently shown to hold Sepuya's work in it's collection at this time based on the article is the Leslie-Lohman museum. Using the Yancey Richardson source for a listing of museums holding Sepuya's work is inadvisable as it is not independent (Yancey Richardson represents the subject, and thus has a vested interest in Sepuya being valuable). Checking the collections listed on that site against the museum's own websites, it appears only MoMA and it's Irish equivalent IMMA are actually in possession of Sepuya's work. 3 museums is hardly several. If more evidence can be brought to show notability, I would be open to changing my opinion, but there is not enough for me to support keeping currently. Ham tech person 07:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Thanks, this is good research. Three museums is indeed several. MOMA is widely recognized as one of the leading contemporary art museum in the world. Notability is clearly satisfied on the colelctions count. Saying someone is one only three museums... well, how many does one have to be in? The dictionary says "more than two" for several. And there we have more than two.104.163.152.238 (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep A cursory search revealed a number of RS's: Vice.com, freundevonfreunden.com, thecreativeindependent.com, brooklynrail.org, etc. Notability is clearly established. Kleuske (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Four works in MoMA [18] go a long way towards 4(d), and a solo exhibit at the KMAC Museum [19] goes a long way towards 4(b), in addition to the multiple reliably published pieces about his work (e.g. [20] [21]). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- PS Also in the permanent collection of the Museum of Contemporary Photography [22] and at the Fotomuseum Winterthur [23]. So 4(d) is now clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The evidence of holdings in museum collections described by several editors is enough to show notabilty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Happy to restore into userspace if it will facilitate a merge of useful info into other articles, just ask. A Train^talk 09:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ORCA user data disclosure incident[edit]

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

While the last discussion reached no consensus, it is glaringly obvious now that this fails the duration of coverage section of the event notability guideline. The investigation into Sound Transit is underway and absolutely zero coverage has mentioned this "incident", instead focusing on actual issues.

The article is still in sorry shape, with few references that refer directly to the subject. There are signs of source synthesis and other policy violations. Sounder Bruce 04:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An example of recent coverage of the mentioned investigation, which has zero mention of ORCA. Sounder Bruce 04:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has been little recent coverage of this incident. The investigation in 2016 found no wrongdoing. Nothing about this is notable. The author of this article is the only person ever to use the term Orcaleak as this article was originally titled. At least some of the original inflammatory language has been toned down, so thanks for that. Danjryan (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - The last news story I can find on this is from September 2016, and said a review board agreed there was no wrongdoing. I could see a possible merge of some content into ORCA card (which already has a subsection on privacy concerns) if someone wants to do that work, but this is not notable enough for its own article. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The Washington State Senate Law & Justice Committee has requested records into this incident and will investigate Thursday. Example: ^[9] JosefAbraham 04:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC) JosefAbraham 04:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Also this reitrated promise from Senator O'Ban for Thursday's Round II of hearings on KTTH's Todd E Herman's show on September 27, 2017. ^[10]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistoop#August_2015
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwertyuiop1994#December_2010
^ http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/archive/2009/01/22/news_top_stories/4064529.Carshalton_home_declares_itself_independent_state/
^ http://advancedsearch2.virginmedia.com/main?ParticipantID=jqlc435patgs4w79dx7g33u8otdryt35&FailedURI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asylum.com%2F2009%2F10%2F20%2F5-weirdest-micronations-how-to-create-your-own-country%2F&FailureMode=1&Implementation=&AddInType=4&Version=pywr1.0&Referer=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F&ClientLocation=uk
^ http://www.corriere.it/
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=yH1mE6_oQQMC&pg=PT137&redir_esc=y
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistoop#August_2015
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwertyuiop1994#December_2010
^ Abigail Doerr E-mail to Sound Transit, March 6, 2016, retrieved October 1, 2017
^ Todd E Herman (September 27, 2017). "The Todd Herman Show Sept 27, 2017 - Hour 1 ~~~~" (Podcast). KTTH. Event occurs at 6:06. Retrieved Oct 1, 2017.

Original author attempting to use wikipedia page to create a political controversy. https://twitter.com/SupportST3/status/914711554141982720 Danjryan (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Danjryan I advised Washington State Senator O'Ban's office as the State Senator is the chief investigator and others to watch the page to watch who's censoring factual information. Nobody here is debating cited facts and documents on my page. No, whether my page should exist or not. This reeks of censorship. There will be major hearings Thursday so the re-initiated attempt to censor the page before the hearings does not build trust or respect or credibility instead of after. JosefAbraham 05:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another example of the authors use of this page for his personal, and very idiosyncratic, political campaign. https://twitter.com/SupportST3/status/914712465228759040 Danjryan (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True. I have tipped off the media since you're attempting to censor before a major legislative hearing on Thursday: http://app.leg.wa.gov/mobile/meetingschedules/Agenda?CommitteeId=17548&Date=10%2F05%2F2017%2013%3A00 .

I'm not going to mince words any more: You and SounderBruce can't wait until AFTER the Thursday hearings to see if you're right this is a "idiosyncratic" campaign or a civil liberties violation. The fact you can't wait means I need to tip off folks this is going on and poke around. More censorship attempts give me credibility... and remember we're not discussing content. STAND DOWN. JosefAbraham 05:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like an admission that you (the original page author) created this page for your political agenda. You do not understand how Wikipedia works. You do not get to create an encyclopedic article and use it to build support for a political cause. Your statement that you "advised Washington State Senator O'Ban's office" confirms you have a clear conflict of interest (COI) on this article due to your personal involvement in the subject, and your "keep" vote does not carry independent weight, and you failed to disclose your COI in your "keep" vote.

Wikipedia is for documenting political movements or other topics that have already achieved encyclopedic notability. Go use the ample free speech rights you already have, convince reliable sources that this is a topic of lasting notability, and then this topic will be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. But (IMO) it isn't right now. You shouldn't claim "censorship" just because Wikipedia policy might result in deleting a page you care about, and it will not help persuade other editors to keep it. The only thing that can do that is demonstrating encyclopedic notability from independent reliable sources. I would recommend not yelling at people to "STAND DOWN" again, as a person with COI berating other editors into silence is what actually registers as censorship around here. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, as I noted above, some of this content may be appropriate for inclusion on the ORCA card page, as long as it does not dominate the page or give undue weight to the issue. A decision that a subject is not notable enough for its own article is not "censorship", nor is it a ban on including content on the topic anywhere on the site. This topic just doesn't seem notable enough for its own separate page. That's all this AfD is actually about. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

JosefAbraham here. Shelbystripes, let me begin by thanking you for wading in here. Danjryan, Sounder Bruce and most certainly I are all three very emotionally attached to lobbying for public transit in the Puget Sound region. I am assuming you are not.

I told my two compatriots to "stand down" because they are major contributors to SeattleTransitBlog.com (full disclosure I am very supportive of that website and have contributed not just comments but occasionally money and Page Two writings) and seemingly were trying to protect Sound Transit by covering up a major data leak right now under Washington State Senate investigation. I am a believer in civil liberties and believe tracking who owns a ORCA card and who does not is a violation of civil liberties.

That said, could I have been a bit more gracious? Probably. But the timing of this tag by Sounder Bruce clearly is questionable. Certainly since he has not added a section on his ORCA Card page about this incident - and deleted my attempt to do so. Censorship to not mention this incident on the ORCA Card page? Probably.

I have attempted and will attempt to keep the main page about the facts and just the facts. My vote to keep this page was so folks could come to the main page and see the facts. See who, what, when, where, why and how. Again, nobody here is debating specific content. I have in the past welcomed edits to make the content better, less emotional and easier to understand.

If somehow, against all the documentation in Washington State Senate Investigation on this page, the ORCA user data disclosure incident does not feature in that hearing Thursday, I will change my vote. All I have done is advise certain souls these WikiPedia antics are going on.

Furthermore, full disclosure I donated to Mass Transit Now and give Transportation Choices Coalition $5 a month. I also testified in front of the ORCA Joint Board Monday, 2 October 2017 advising them this incident may have breached RCW 42.17A.555 which prohibits the use of lists to further ballot measures like Sound Transit 3. As this is speculation, did not make mainstream media, did not get an ORCA Joint Board response, and I am not a lawyer; I do not think these personal views belong on the main WikiPedia page.

I think transit advocates need not be "yes men" or "yes women" to one another, but truly passionate supporters capable of criticizing transit agencies. This leak happened. It needs to be patched and its patching needs documentation.

I hope you and other disinterested parties are satisfied. Again, If somehow, against all the documentation in Washington State Senate Investigation on the original page, the ORCA user data disclosure incident does not feature in that hearing Thursday, I will change my vote.

JosefAbraham 03:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

Delete OK, first of all JosefAbraham: keep your posts short, and cite Wikipedia policies to support your position. Also, if your posting on Wikipedia is part of your job (if your boss asked it, even if you are not paid specifically for it), you must disclose it per WP:PAID. Also, website X not having an article about Y for arbitrary reason is not censorship (even when X=Wikipedia) as long as it is not the government's decision (see [24]). If you try to argue about this, I will ignore you per WP:NOTFORUM.

I read the (long) posts above and what little policy-based argument I can infer from it is that this incident will be subject of a state senate hearing soon which counts towards notability. Except it does not: putting something at the agenda of a senate hearing is equivalent to a primary source written by senators and their staff; I have not looked at the rules for the Washington state senate so I do not know whether it takes one senator or more than half of them or whatever, but regardless it is a primary source and hence does not contribute to notability.

It might be that after the hearing there will be some media noise whose amplitude may or may not reach the bar of notability, but we do not base notability on speculation. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Timing of delete request not significant. This article was not newsworthy a year ago when the original author first started pushing the "Orcaleak" fake scandal. Repeated attempts to contact journalists and state senator offices that his article may get deleted are not appropriate. Senate office has declined a request from the author to testify on this subject. If topic is referenced in Senate hearing, that is still a one-day news story, if that, and not notable. "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." Danjryan (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep for now I have no job connection to the Washington State Senate, period. As to Wikipedia:Notability, let me quote at length from the article, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."

Take a look at the References tab of ORCA user data disclosure incident. You will see RCWs cited, investigative reports cited and reputable media sources cited - Seattle Times (2x), KTTH and Everett Herald. Perhaps I am mistaken in preferring primary sources over secondary sources in citation.

I agree with Danjryan, "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." As I speak, the ORCA Card is being upgraded to a new version. Multiple pieces of state legislation will be likely introduced from tomorrow's hearing. Let's all wait until tomorrow's hearing and see what comes of it.

Perhaps a permastub would balance the concerns about notability and documentation. I would be open to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that the "hearing" into this issue (buried under other election-related inquiries) has passed, it's pretty obvious that the media will not be giving it continuing coverage, thus it fails Duration of coverage. The prospect of lasting effects is also slim to none, so there really is no argument for keeping this article on the site. Sounder Bruce 23:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, with possibly a very selective merge into the article on the card itself. The lack of coverage-duration is the major consideration here. In the event that something else comes of this (the wheels of government grind pretty darn slowly this side of the Pacific, and I assume the same to be true in the States), there's nothing wrong with a re-creation of the article with the appropriate context. The political inclinations and "extra-curricular" activities of contributors to this debate are entirely irrelevant, as is shouting at them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think if there was a merge into the ORCA Card article by Sounder Bruce, I could support that. But I doubt Sounder Bruce will play ball.

That said, the message I'm getting from disinterested WikiPedia contributors is that may be the best route to take. The hearings did uncover most of if not all the unsavory details and a final report is coming out soon. Will anything come of the requests for further investigations? Sadly, unlikely. JosefAbraham 18:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

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) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Descendants of Hazrat Mai Safoora Qadiriyya[edit]

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

The articles of Mai Safoora and one of her descendants were already deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mai Safoora and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Muhammad Safoori respectively) as being non-notable. Seems to me that an article combining these people is equally non-notable. All listed references are quotes from one reader's letter sent to the newspaper Dawn, which itself does not go beyond a passing mention. HyperGaruda (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom. Greenbörg (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete also surprised that the article survived so long. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alana Bridgewater[edit]

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

Notability is not asserted by citations from multiple non-trivial third-party sources. There is only a passing mention in one article, and I am unable to find additional sources. Appears to have a few bit parts, but does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Originally a redirect, but appears to have been created as a WP:COI article; see User:Alyrica. Kinu ^t/_c 04:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Sourced by a web-page in which the subject is mentioned only in passing. Article is mainly a CV, mainly OR, and an orphan. There isn't even really a claim for notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Agricola44. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 16:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete lack of sources to show her passing musician notability. In her acting career, she is involved in non-notable stage productions, so that is not amounting to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Inadequate refs to establish notability.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 08:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:ORG. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, no indication of significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, it's a worldwide non-profit professional body holding conferences on several continents, even in its current state the Wikipedia article is mostly sourced using independent reliable sources. It's been active for over 50 years too. Meets WP:NONPROFIT (which is part of WP:NCORP). Sionk (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Agreeing with Sionk. Also, a simple Google search reveals quite a lot of coverage, but most articles mentioning the organisation uses the abbreviation IFI rather than the full name. Danmuz (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- a directory-like listing for an unremarkable industry group; the sources do not indicate notability or significance. Wikipedia is not a directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alex M.O.R.P.H.[edit]

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

The article mostly relies on user-generated sources such as Discogs to support its content, going against WP:USERG. Hakken (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG, received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject – [25][26][27][28][29][30]. — Za wl 11:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage given above by Zawl.--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per ZAWL, the subject has significant coverage in the news, clearly passed WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArchLabs[edit]

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

It does not have notability and reliable sources. Editor-1 (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Articles in Linux Insider, It's FOSS, and StationX are significant coverage in indepedent, reliable sources and so passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Unfortunately the article itself has the wrong sources, so to speak, but those above indicate that the subject passes GNG. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 11:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ResDiary[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: The Manila Times, Philippine Star and Herald Scotland citations are all reliable sources providing significant coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both the Manila Times and Philippine Star only state they have a local tie up in Philippines and plan to offer there services there. Herald Scotland piece is a interview with the founder.There is nothing that is a significant coverage only routine news coverage news coverage most of the other pieces are not WP:RS are about tieup ,cancellation technology , company has 15 employees and appears to upcoming company at this point a case of WP:TOOSOON at best ,the company size and turnover is not signficant .This is a paid article to promote the company.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I agree with Pharaoh of the Wizards that the references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH as no significant sourcing has been established. Per Pharaoh, interviews with a member of the company or information from user-generated websites does not qualify as adequate sources for establishing notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as the ideal policies we use here are WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Not advocacy at all costs, and above anything else; should there be chances of an article, saving unacceptable certainly isn't the solution. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; there is consensus that membership in an organization with a low threshold for entry does not confer notability on this subject. bd2412 T 21:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T. W. S. Hunt[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this individual. Appears to be more about advertising for his books. Refs are his own web-site, the publisher of his books and YouTube. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Fellow Royal Society ofArts has always been considered notable here. Obviously the article needs expansion to show hwhy he received the honour. I don't see this article as the least promotional . His books are barely in fact, inadequately) mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, this is a funny one, usually i would say yep as a fellow of the RSA Hunt meets WP:ANYBIO so thats enough, but (here we go...:)), he has only been a fellow since Sept 2017 from Linkedin, there are about 28,000 fellows, and at the moment wp only has articles on around 320 of them (so lots more to add:)), his books appear to be self published (or could be indie published?), WorldCat doesn't show many libraries with his books ie. Winter with God 1 library, The Way of Faith zero libraries, a gsearch for useble reviews doesn't bring up much ie. Winter with God, The Way of Faith, hopefully a better editor than me can find notable stuff. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comment - the RSA website makes it very clear that almost anyone can apply to be a fellow provided they can satisfy one or more fairly low level threshold crteria. This is nothing like some other fellowships such as Fellowship of the Royal Society which is reserved for only the most gifted scientific minds. FRSA , IMHO is not anything close to a measure of notability on Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. FRSA does not meet notability requirements. It's an "honour" that one applies for and purchases. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- an early career writer who got his B.Ed in 2015; clearly WP:TOOSOON. I could not find any sources that would help the subject meet WP:AUTHOR, while sources currently listed in the article are not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I think there's been some confusion with the much more selective fellowship of the Royal Society of Literature, which is capped at 500. Blythwood (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Agree with others above that FRSA is not the kind of selective fellowship that brings notability. Article makes no case for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR; as K.e.c writes, this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 given consensus, nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concordia Preparatory School (Utah)[edit]

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

No indication of notability that I can see. It's a school, one of millions in the world. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction: it was a school – apparently it is now defunct. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Many sources are evident for this school during its 27 years as Salt Lake Lutheran High School, see e.g. the HighBeam search results. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. All schools are notable, ever former schools. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"All schools are notable" is not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines: see WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete~~. I'm unable to find any significant coverage per WP:GNG and WP:ORG, using either the school's present or former name. The sources identified by Arxiloxos are WP:ROUTINE, mostly reporting the results of school sports matches. Eastmain is correct that notability is not temporary, but this school was never notable, and still isn't. WP:ORG says that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." Pburka (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: This newspaper article is reasonably in-depth. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - It is. I've withdrawn my !vote. Pburka (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, and consider renaming as Salt Lake Lutheran High School. I accept, for the purposes of this discussion, that evidence of notability is needed. And this is not as obvious a case as, for example, the recent discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouse High School and its subsequent deletion review, since this was not a public school, and evidently smaller. But this was also not one of the tiny or nearly unverifiable schools that were the focus of the recent and laboriously argued RfC. Here we have substantial coverage in regional media of the sort that consensus has long accepted as being sufficient to establish that a school passes WP:N--especially (though not only) during the decades of its existence as Salt Lake Lutheran. Yes, quite a bit of it is sports, but certainly not just line scores [31][32][33]. The RfC closure expressly acknowledged that "schools are special", and the discussion makes clear that coverage in local media can still be enough to meet the notability threshhold. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and move back to the Salt Lake name which it had for most of its existence, and under which it is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and rename. Meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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) 19:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeannette H. Lee[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, and connected to two red-linked companies (not necessarily non-notable, but probably). Article makes a claim of importance (CEO, won an award from a magazine), so is not speedily deletable. One article in a non-trivial publication focuses entirely on her. I'm looking in results of various Google searches and not seeing much else; just lots of social profiles, entries in businesspeople indexes, and false positives. I did clean up the article a bit (it was originally mostly a copy-paste from one of cited sources). There's not much there, though the two sources can be used to provide additional details, like education. The problem is lack of additional coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The award-granting magazine may have done an article on her. Our article was created by someone who never made another edit [34] and is presumably the subject or someone close to the subject. The local-government source cited is obviously just regurgitating from a self-authored bio. I was going to WP:PROD this, but I have enough of a suspicion that there might be some additional material on this person that AfD seems more appropriate, especially since the material we have dates to between 11 and 20 years ago, so Ms. Lee White may have gone on to bigger-better things. Maybe the WP:WPWIR folks have good resources for salvaging such articles; I listed this AfD in their deletion tracker. PS: I've opened an RM at Talk:Jeannette Lee, that will move this article to Jeannette Lee White if it is kept, to match info in the decade-newer source. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC), updated 10:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep on the assumption that more sources can be found, I may change my vote if they can't, but that magazine coverage is a good thing to start with. Initial searches (and the noms wp:before) were almost certainly hampered by the incorrect title. "Jeannette Lee White", reveals: [35] [36] [37] [38] this very good ref (page 362 of American Women Leaders: 1,560 Current Biographies, By Carol Hooks Hawkins [39]) [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. I could probably find more if I really had to, this was from a quick google (with the correct name). Dysklyver 00:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as passing the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. Google gives plwnty of hitsBabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I've gone through the new sources mentioned above and most of them are mentions-in-passing, "who's who" material, regurgitation of Lee's own official bio or her company's press releases, rehash of Working Woman material already cited, local papers, parroting WP's own article, etc. But the second Washington Post piece is a real, focused article in a major paper. Combined with the other good source already cited, this seems marginally enough to keep, if the article is actually improved with this material. One of them, the more recent company press release, is good enough as a primary source for what company she works at now (well, as of 2016) and that she's back to using Lee (seems to satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF). Should probably be moved to Jeannette H. Lee. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 02:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The sources to prove notability exist. As long as that's the case, it doesn't matter whether they're actually in the article, contrary to SMcCandlish's assertion. Smartyllama (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreating in draft if additional bases for notability arise. bd2412 T 21:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fabrizio Tavano[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. New Zealand league is not professional. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete As per WP:FPL playing for Auckland City a non professional team in a non professional league even if it is New Zealand's highest league. NZFC^(talk) 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete - BLP about a semi-pro footballer who has only received limited coverage in reliable sources (the article on the es:Wikipedia has a few interviews and articles that don't really amount to GNG-compliance). Jogurney (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment This player has played in the 2016 FIFA Club World Cup finals tournament which is a grey area under WP:FOOTBALL. It has been used as arguement both successfully and unsuccessfully at AfD ;see Osama Malik,Emiliano Tade,David Browne,Greg Uhlmann,Articles for deletion/Adam Dickinson Articles for deletion/Daniel Koprivcic, although each of those articles and their AfDs contain additional information and/or arguments. ClubOranje^T 08:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment - in those AfDs, for the players kept, either the matches in the Club World Cup in which they played were between teams from two fully professional leagues or sufficient third party sources were found to support GNG. As this player does not and has not played for a team in a fully professional league, they need to explicitly satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I voted !Keep in Tade's AfD, but I thought he had a stronger notability claim for having participated in multiple Club World Cups and had slightly more in-depth coverage towards satisfying the GNG. I'd like to think that article could have been expanded by now, but Tavano's seems less plausible given the lack of high-profile matches thus far in his career. Jogurney (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep References in various versions of this article meet WP:GNG. See http://www.tiemporeal.mx/nota/39932-un-mexicano-mas-en-el-mundial-de-clubes/, http://www.voxy.co.nz/sport/5/243799, and http://espndeportes.espn.com/news/story?id=1959705. Nfitz (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nfitz is topic banned from the Wikipedia namespace and therefore has no standing to comment here. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. 5 games at 2 FIFA Club World Cups, including playing in the semi final and winning the bronze medal with a minnow side like AKC is akin to Iceland getting to semis in the Euros, and got to generate more coverage, like those above, and in depth interviews like this, than a couple of substitute appearances in a local cup, or 46 minutes in a regional cup competition, so common sense applies. Article needs improving not deleting. ClubOranje^T 07:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - some comments on the sources presented above which claim to satisfy GNG:

Oceania Football - this is a primary source, the interview is from the OFC's official website, GNG needs coverage in secondary sources.
tiemporeal.mx - this is simply a brief article that states little more than he is a Mexican player in New Zealand, difficult to see how this could be used to build out much encyclopedic content
voxy.co.nz - Although the article title mentions the player, this is not significant coverage of the player himself, with the article mentioning him in the context of routine transfer talk before spending most of the article discussing his club.
ESPN - significant enough in my opinion to help support GNG, but this coupled with one other Spanish source of minimal length isn't really enough overall. Fenix down (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cmt OFC a primary source? Really?. When did that change? Last year you argued OFC was sufficiently removed from the individual to count as independant coverage. What about FIFA? Are they primary also?. And there is other coverage eq of the ESPN one [45], [46], [47], ClubOranje^T 12:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that player were to come to AfD again I would probably err on the side of caution and say that it probably is primary in the sense that both articles are essentially using the interview with the player to promote club's belonging to their confederation's participation in the club world cup. On your other sources:

apuntesderabona - looks like a blog to me, not really sure of its significance in terms of coverage
Univision - doesn't really discuss the player in great depth, about half of the brief-ish article talks about games Auckland might play in the tournament and elements are openly credited as having been lifted from his clubs official (and therefore WP:PRIMARY webpage)
maquinacementera.com - does add a bit more significant coverage, but I'm not completely convinced. There seems to be a fair bit of little articles out there and a couple of interviews, but I'm not sure there is enough for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reached the same conclusion at Fenix down regarding the GNG. Most of the sources in the es:Wikipedia article don't qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources (apuntesderabona and maquinacementara are self-published blogs) and the few that come close just aren't enough. Jogurney (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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.