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 MLS Cup Playoffs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MLS playoffs records[edit]

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

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

A question in PROD: a PROD nominator says:Why is this needed? Couldn't this be on MLS Cup Playoffs? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no need for separate article. GiantSnowman 12:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not relevant and lacks citations, just looks like an indiscriminate collection of stats. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs and include the information there. Plausible search term, important information, but no reason it can't be in the main article. Smartyllama (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs for now, but willing to split and make a standalone article if the section becomes WP:TOOLONG Quidster4040 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given that apparently the name is not used. If a redirect is created anyway and anyone objects to that, send it to WP:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Installware[edit]

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

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

Orphan (since 2010), no sources (since 2010), nothing more than a dictionary-style definition. Nothing useful turns up in the first few pages of a Google search. Many Google hits are "AGP InstallWare" - not relevant to this - or themselves appear to be derived from the present article. There's not even an independent dictionary definition of this word other than Urban Dictionary. Probable neologism that hasn't caught on. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I have never heard of "installware" and can't see that it's widely used, or even used by any relevant body or reputable media organisation. Google actually kept correcting it to installaware. Which is a commercial software package.Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Non-notable, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Potentially unwanted program, which seems to be approximately the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Potentially unwanted program as stated above; there's no way of knowing how many people/if any people use this as a neologism for PUP, but creating a redirect would point those people to the right article if indeed they exist. Nanophosis (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: a redirect would make sense only if the word is in fact in use. There is no evidence that it is. We shouldn't be creating 'just in case' redirects for unused neologisms. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur, still should be delete rather than redirect in my opinion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
• delete pretty clear that nobody uses the word to mean this. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 00:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GAZUA[edit]

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

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

Rrod'ed this as WP:NOTDICT; prod removed by page creator. I guess a Korean speaker would be able to read the 'sufficient references', but I do so see that the fact that somebody has used the word on TV makes it notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I suggested enough sources that prove this word is spoken in South Korea widely and news articles mainly covered this word. --Motoko C. K. (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDICT.TheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that policy. I want to read other user's opinion. --Motoko C. K. (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested other articles that mainly cover this word. --Motoko C. K. (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete"--H.L.LEE (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article definitely falls foul of WP:NOTDIC. It fails to introduce any real notariety, given most of the article is concerned with describing the word only, and would be perfect on Wiktionary instead. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Naagin (Geo Kahani)#Main Cast. T. Canens (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hareb Farooq[edit]

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

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

fails to meet WP:ACTOR. not much coverage in RS. cited material fails verification. Saqib (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of susbtantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added more coverage. Please remove the tag. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hj.hj.hj.hjkk (talk • contribs)

None is of significant. --Saqib (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Significant what? I am not related to media that i can personally add more cites. I have added all the sources which were available. I have seen many pages on Wikipedia which did not contain even a single cite but still they are on main page. You can add a tag that this article need reliable sources but please don't delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.209.252 (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that much of Wikipedia does not contain even a single source. Per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, however, that's not a reason to keep this article. (Actually, it's probably a better argument that we need to delete more articles.) Chetsford (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep entry now includes cites to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Lead role in a major show. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: None of the RS verifies the subject is playing lead role in any TV programme. --Saqib (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bollywood Life article says " It stars Pakistani actress Resham Sheen in lead role. The show also has Jana Malik and Hareeb Farooq in lead roles.". FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete as possible WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice for eventual recreation. WP:NACTOR generally requires actors to have had "multiple" leading roles, the subject of this article has only had one leading role. Failing NACTOR, subject would have to meet the GNG, however, sources in article are either non-RS, have a limited reference point to his one leading role, or contain merely incidental mentions. Per the article creator, above, this constitutes "all the sources which were available" [1]. Chetsford (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Naagin_(Geo_Kahani)#Main_Cast, the series that he's known for. WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article, as not meeting WP:NACTOR at the present time with a single role. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Now a well developed article, that is snowballing into an overwhelming consensus , about a notable author with plenty of sources -- and a NYT reviewed book. Sadads (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ijeoma Oluo[edit]

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

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

Non-notable blogger/writer who got one quip in a local news source that she was best. This is 1BLP at it's lowest. Article contains some references, but mostly to primary and unreliable sources. Throw in a few (not in citation givens) and self published references, and there is no notability shown at all. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article as it stands meets WP:GNG, the author has received independent coverage in multiple secondary sources over a sustained period of time, about different topics and incidents (Nytimes, Seattle Magazine, The Stranger, Salon). The article could use some work in moving citations added by the newbie who started the article into Further Reading or Bibliography. In addition to the sources that are there, I was in the midst of improving the article, will continue. Monikasj (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 22:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• FFS [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not merely require sources in RSs but that they are independent and significant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find even one independent and significant source in any of those 22 links? You don't consider Time magazine to be independent? Are you saying Ijeoma Oluo controls Time Magazine? And CNN? Does CNN work for Ijeoma Oluo? And Wired? And Ebony? None of these are independent? Is she some kind of supervillian? What the hell? Honestly. This is wasting everyone's time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any of those claims. Just reminding people of the actual requirements as they might just be posting sources and not considering the GNG criteria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if I were to reply "Don't be an asshole" right now to you, you would in no way interpret that as me implying that you had been or were being an asshole, right? I'd just be saying to "people" in general that they shouldn't be an asshole and/or be assholes. Carefully indenting my reply like this :::::Don't be an asshole. --~~~~~ directly under what you posted should not be interpreted as addressing the editor under whose comments I placed my totally general, nonspecific, impersonal remark, intended only as good advice for all people everywhere. Nobody ought to be an asshole, nothing personal, please don't think for one second I'm referring to you. Never in a million years would I say such a thing to a specific editor. Just saying, is all. I will keep your excellent general, nonspecific advice in mind going forward. I'm sure all "people" appreciate that you reminded them of the basic requirements of GNG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep persubstantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What Dennis said. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources provided by Dennis. Appears to pass GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep substantial evidence of notability in the article. Meets GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 23:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• After the first half-dozen ivotes--all keep--were posted, the nominator engaged in what I'd stress gives the impression (not the certainty) of canvassing, by contacting only two (1, 2) of the 15+ previous editors of this entry who had not yet weighed in on the AfD; neither of the two who were contacted were particularly significant contributors. This may not have been intentional, especially as I note those are, at this time, Antonioatrylia's most recent WP edits, so perhaps something came up off WP to prevent them from contacting the page's editors more uniformly. However I still find it highly unadvisable to undertake to post these notices after numerous editors have unanimously disagreed with the nomination (as opposed to at the time of the nomination), as it can give the impression of shopping for ivotes. And obviously the bottom line that only two editors were notified is a problem regardless of intention. Given that this has happened, and that community opinion still unanimously disagrees with the nomination, I'd suggest this be snow or speedily closed, before it becomes even more of a mess than it already is (at this time, neither of the editors who received these notices have commented). Innisfree987 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was not canvassed or contacted in any way about this. I have edited this page in the past and I saw it was up for deletion. Oluo is definitely notable enough to have an article entry. This article is well sourced and she's mentioned in many notable places over the course of years. She is an influential writer and has published articles in several major newspapers, and has published two books, one of which has been noted by several newspapers and magazines including the NYT and Harper's Bazaar. Besides all that, Oluo was also part of a Facebook account deletion controversy in 2017 that was widely covered in the news at the time. Perhaps there are problems with the article that need to be addressed, but she certainly deserves an entry. Someone may have been misbehaving, possibly because they didn't understand the rules, but the article stands on its own and shouldn't be deleted. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-known writer. WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . I concur with everything said by Dennis Bratland, especially the swearing. Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep article clearly meets WP:GNG especially after improvements. Jessamyn (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Academy of Bacoor, Cavite[edit]

Our Lady of Lourdes Academy of Bacoor, Cavite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The previous AfD only brought forth sources verifying the existence of the Academy, but they were so thin that they did nothing to prove the school meets notability guidelines. Schools are not automatically notable, there still needs to be significant coverage and this school simply does not have that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous AfD can be found at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady of Lourdes Academy of Bacoor Cavite, Inc.. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Two years of development and the article is still a single line with a dubious reference. I'm not sure that even passes WP:V. The list of potential sources seem to be all mentions in lists and mirrors of the Wikipedia article. We don't know enough from the available references to create an article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A quick check on Google only have a few hits, most of them social media en Wikipedia-mirrors. Now that Schooloutcomes is finally discounted, we can judge the article on its merits. And than you draw a blank... The Banner talk 09:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because, as I explained in the first AfD, while there are sources that serve the bare purpose of verifying that this school exists, the coverage is so thin that there is nothing to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can show existence on various lists, but this is indeed sub-minimal. DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. adequate consensus after 2nd relisting DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary Society of Saint Thomas[edit]

Missionary Society of Saint Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability asserted. Sources are all primary and inaccessible to general readers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a major missionary organisation, offline references are allowed as well as the web Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the probably only congregation of an entire Eastern Catholic rite, which gave it three bishops; I've added a major Catholic reference site's page and some more data from it Curopalates (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its a well known Religious order in India. The article should be given time to improve and add references. ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 04:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The page fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search on Google found out only passing references. Hagennos (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this religious order is large enough to be notable, and the fact that it has produced three bishops is a significant sign of it's impact within a Eastern Catholic sui iuris Church. WP:NPOSSIBLE applies here, as it is obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with the subject area that the sourcing would exist here if we had access to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 14:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Award[edit]

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

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

Not notable. No refs in the article, and the coverage I find is largely sourced (or possibly sourced) to Wikipedia. I see no mention on Guerin Sportivo's website, nor any contemporaneous coverage of this being awarded. I'm not entirely convinced this isn't a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll look into more later when I have time but wanted to say it appears to be a valid award as there is an external link to it on RSSSF here. NZFC^(talk) 21:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it's likely it exists (or at least existed up to 2015), I've just not found references which prove it existed, which is very bizarre. The mentions in bios of (e.g.) Lionel Messi published years later could be relying on Wikipedia or RSSSF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly exists, and equally clearly regarded as noteworthy. My first ten Google search results (for Trofeo Bravo, not Bravo Award) include two contemporary news results. In 2004, Diario AS reported Cristiano Ronaldo receiving "el prestigioso Trofeo Bravo que concede la publicación deportiva italiana Guerin Sportivo" (the prestigious Trofeo Bravo awarded by the Italian sports publication Guerin Sportivo). In 2007, reporting Messi's win, El Mundo stated that the award is considered the under-21 equivalent of the Ballon d'Or. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Struway's excellent (as ever) research. GiantSnowman 15:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks like a bit of confusion regarding the title which may have inhibited searches for sources, but looks clear that it is relatively widely reported. The article itself needs more sourced prose on the awards itself and not just be limited to a list of winners. Fenix down (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Park[edit]

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

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

Municipal park, fails WP:GNG. A search doesn't reveal any in-depth coverage of the park. Rusf10 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An in-depth search soon reveals plenty of sources. The nomination is false. Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to give some examples of these sources?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Search links are conveniently provided above. Andrew D. (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously??? Just because the subject is mentioned in an article does not mean it has significant coverage. Simply clicking on those links and declaring "there are search results, it must be notable" does not actually establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if this park has numerous mentions, but nothing indepth, maybe appropriate for a redirect/merge to Copiague, New York? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing notable enough to merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep abundant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nom is reminded to please follow WP:BEFORE. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to throw out terms like "abundant coverage", it would be helpful to actually point to those sources. The only source in the article right now is [24], that's not independent. All I can find is several Newsday articles that just happen to mention the park, which I'd hardly consider abundant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete passing mentions of a municipal park are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see the same results as JPL: passing references to a place where routine things happen, but nothing substantial about the park. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- an unremarkable municipal park. Article does not cite secondary, independent RS, and significant coverage not found either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koven (group)[edit]

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

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

Run-of-the-mill. Non-notable music group, sources are mostly interviews (primary). Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Award won is not a significant/notable one. — Zawl 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank[edit]

Wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The wedding of a minor royal is not notable enough for inclusion. Thus far all our articles concerning British royal marriages are about marriages of a sovereign, a child of a sovereign or a child of the heir to the throne. Eugenie is way down the list of succession and while there may be a few tabloid photos it's barely newsworthy let alone notable enough for inclusion here. Nixon Now (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Additional comment: or merge with Princess Eugenie of York. Nixon Now (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I really doubt that the granddaughter of the reigning monarch can be categorized as a minor royal. The fact that we don't have an article about the wedding of a grandchild of a sovereign is not a solid reason for deleting this article as this event cannot be compared to those of 50 years ago when internet didn't exist so not every single royal event could be covered. The event has already been covered and mentioned in multiple sources, including major news agencies and newspapers, thus it's notable. Keivan.f^Talk 07:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She's not a minor royal, 8th in line to the throne, big event. Szzuk (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The BBC called her a "minor royal" and this was even before the birth of William's two children (and by the time she marries, she'll be 9th in line, not 8th): "As well as the Queen and her close family, the wedding will be teeming with more minor royals. Among the better known are Princess Beatrice and her sister, Eugenie, pictured here. Daughters of the Duke of York and Sarah Ferguson, aka Duke and Duchess of York, their full titles are HRH Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York and HRH Princess Eugenie Victoria Helena of York"[25]
  • In addition, Eugenie is not among the first six in the line to succession who are required to get the Queen's consent under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, and by the time the wedding occurs, not even her father will be one of the top 6 so I think that's a clear indication that she is a minor royal. Nor do we have articles for the marriages of Anne's children, Peter Phillips or Anne Phillips both of whom, like Eugenie, are grandchildren of the Queen yet considered minor royals. Nixon Now (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also think this event isn't going to be covered by every major UK newspaper and TV channel? Szzuk (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many celebrity weddings get widespread news coverage. I suspect George Clooney's wedding to Amal Alamuddin received wider news coverage than Eugenie's wedding will yet we don't and shouldn't have an article dedicated to Clooney's wedding. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. The information in this article could easily be included in the article on Eugenie. Nixon Now (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's not possible to merge it with Eugenie's article as it will make the whole article look unbalanced. BBC mentions her as a minor royal in one report yet it covers her engagement in detail which means that news agencies like BBC consider this event notable, otherwise they wouldn't have covered it. Peter and Zara are the Queen's grandchildren in female line, yet they are neither prince/princess nor they are labeled as official members of the royal family. By the way, the articles related to royals cannot be compared to articles about celebrities. Clooney's wedding was a private event, not a public event like Eugenie's, and that's what makes the royals relevant in some ways – their weddings and funerals are public (and in some cases national) occasions. Keivan.f^Talk 22:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a public event? It is not a state occasion and there is no indication that it will be televised live or that the prime minister or Commonwealth or foreign leaders will be in attendance. Being covered by the tabloid press and monarchy related magazines does not a public event make. Nixon Now (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And who says that it won't be televised? And as a matter of fact, neither William's wedding nor Harry's are state occasions, that's why I used the term public. I don't know what is considered a reliable source by you, but BBC, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, etc, are not tabloid press like Daily Mail. Peter and Zara's wedding ceremonies were also broadcast on BBC. Their arrival, departure, and almost everything (except the marriage service inside the chapel) was shown live on BBC and I even remember watching some parts of Zara's wedding. As with Eugenie's wedding, it hasn't been announced whether it will be televised or not. As of now, the announcement of their engagement, their interview on TV, etc, are similar in nature to what we have seen with Harry and Meghan during the past months, although they attract more attention due to Harry's popularity and Meghan's background. Keivan.f^Talk 00:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what evidence do you have that it's a "public occasion". List your source. Having articles about it in the press or even an interview doesn't make it "public" any more than any other celebrity wedding. Nixon Now (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you can’t compare George Clooney’s wedding to a Princess wedding they are totally different things Clooney’s was a private event with only close friends and Family whilst Princess Eugenie’s as granddaughter of the Queen will have news coverage, Harry’s wedding is also not a special occasion it’s been said that it won’t be a bank holiday so what’s special about it? This to wedding are almost the same the only difference is that Harry is son of Princess Diana and Eugenie isn’t MaliG28 (talk)

That entirely depends on what your definition of "public" is. She's a royal, everything about her is public, and it's not my interpretation, they define themselves as public servants of the country, and almost all the details about their lives are made public, which in nature is in contrast to George Clooney or any other actor's life who are private citizens. The ceremony is going to be held at St George's Chapel, and is going to be similar to the weddings of her uncles Edward and Charles in 1999 and 2005 respectively, which means that it's going to get coverage but the ceremony will be simple, yet my question is what makes those weddings notable and this one unimportant? And to me it seems that as a member of the British royal family - probably the most well-known royal family in the world - her wedding is getting more coverage than those of princes or princesses from some other countries which we have articles about. Keivan.f^Talk 22:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that’s exactly what I’m saying!! What makes this wedding less important than those of princesses most people don’t know about? MaliG28 (talk)

Eugenie is not one of the Royals paid through the privy purse so she is not a working or by your definition a "public" royal. As well, Windsor Castle is the Queen's personal property unlike Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's. She's a minor royal and her wedding is not a "public event" and does not merit an article. Nixon Now (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being public has nothing to do with her source of income. She carries out public engagements on behalf of her grandmother and makes appearances unlike her other cousins Peter and Zara, so yes, she's a public figure. St George's Chapel is the venue for Harry's upcoming wedding and is the place where Edward's and Charles' weddings took place. Based on your rationale none of these events are neither public nor notable. Keivan.f^Talk 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the Duke of York’s website says that Eugenie is patron of 5 charities and organizations that makes her a “public” Royal.[26] MaliG28 (talk)

You're making up a term and then defining it to suit your needs. The fact is she isn't paid from the privy purse and isn't included in the concept of a slimmed down monarchy that Buckingham Palace now supports.. See for example this article and this article Nixon Now (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is trying to create a term. So to be considered a public figure she needs to get paid from the privy purse. I'm sorry, I know that she's not a "full-time royal" but I've never read anything like that before. I think we should let the voters judge. Keivan.f^Talk 05:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Princess Eugenie is the granddaughter of the most famous reigning monarch in the world so it will definitely be a public event, specially since we have internet it’s not only going to be seen in the UK but in other parts of the world as well , and it’s already been drawing attention from important newspapers. MaliG28 (talk)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We can have lots of coverage of this event in the article on Princess Eugenie, but there is no reason to have a stand alone article on it. Also with Prince Harry about to get married, that will make it likely that Princess Eugenie could be pushed even further down the line of succession soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You say Wikipedia is not a newspaper and yet there are wedding articles of lesser known royals such as Princess Madeleine’s and Prince Carl Phillip’s , and Harry is going to marry a few months before her so she won’t be pushed any further down the line of succession by the time of her wedding besides Miss Markle is 37 years old I doubt it will be easy for her to get pregnant soon. Princess Eugenie is a Princess by blood and the granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth her wedding will be an important event. MaliG28 (talk)

That's an argument for there to be an article on Princess Eugenie of York, not for there to be an article dedicated to her wedding.Nixon Now (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so why this article has to be on her Wikipedia and the others mentioned on the comments get to have its own articles. Just because YOU think this is irrelevant does not make it irrelevant for the rest of us, if you don’t want to see or read this article then don’t do it. MaliG28 (talk)

Your argument in rebuttal here makes no sense and doesn't reference any Wikipedia policies or guidelines (not correctly at least). I think you need to review Wikipedia's articles for deletion process and how we establish notability here before you respond here further. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there’s a point where it says “Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time” and this article is already an it will meet this criteria, as granddaughter of the queen her wedding will get a lot of coverage from important news, it’s notabi it’s not in jeopardy, like i said just because a few don’t know her it doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t know who she is, Harry’s wedding has it own Wikipedia page as well and why that one is okay but this one isn’t ? Not everyone knows Harry , Not everyone knows Eugenie’s but as grandchild of the current monarch their weddings will get a lot of attention MaliG28 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a few weeks is not a "sufficiently significant period of time". Secondly, could you please sign your comments? Nixon Now (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Bound to be significant coverage of this event, not just of the tabloid variety, so this will pass WP:GNG. And she is a granddaughter of a reigning monarch. There's a bit of WP:CRYSTAL information that needs to be removed though (like the month in the infobox, which I thought hadn't been decided yet). This is Paul (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, since she has a royal title, that gives added weight to this article's notable status. This is Paul (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Princess Eugenie of York, where it will make a useful section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the wedding of a princess is bound to be a significant event with major news coverage, especially if the bride is a member of the British Royal Family.181.67.252.166 (talk) 14:17,31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Will be a significant event. Articlewill be updated throughout the timeleft untik the wedding per British media sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify, arguments are stating that it will be a significant event. Let's wait until it is a significant event. --J04n(talk page) 15:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It has already recieved plenty of media attention and is already high profiled. BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It’s already a significant event. MaliG28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She will be the first British princess of the blood royal to marry in almost thirty years, and the first in forty five with potential big press coverage. There has already been a good amount of media coverage by major sources such as the Telegraph and BBC. It would also look ungainly to have the list of attending members of the R.F on Eugenie's page and other famous people that may come and all the trivia and info surrounding the wedding. Also unlike her Phillips cousins, a press release of Eugenie's engagement has been put on the Royal Family's website and the engagement was retweeted and announced by the RF Twitter, and the other official twitters, which shows it is a royal wedding, not one where members of the Royal Family are invited. Prancer16 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as stated above when I posted on here last week. Also, as has been highlighted by someone else, she is the first British royal princess to marry in a long while, but the tiemspan is twenty six years rather than forty five, since, although we don't have an article about it, the Wedding of Anne, Princess Royal, and Timothy Laurence took place in 1992. This is Paul (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I forgot about the Princess Royal's second marriage.Prancer16 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the two comments above already highlighted she will be the first Princess by blood to marry in 26 years and the first to marry in the Church of England in 45 years (the Princess Royal second marriage was by the Church of Scotland as the Church of England didn’t allow divorced people to remarry)and as I already posted before, important news agencies have covered the engagement and will definitely cover the wedding as it will be an important event for the Royal Family. MaliG28 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @This is Paul and MaliG28: I just have a question. I don't think it's necessary to vote again down here because our initial votes are going to get counted when the discussion is over, right? Keivan.f^Talk 22:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- engagement has been announced, and there's already sufficient coverage. Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is also a page. This would inevitably get recreated so might as well keep it now. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Lagoon[edit]

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

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

No claim of notability for a city facility which wouldn't be presumed notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Barker[edit]

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

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

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

No independent references found, under either this name or her married (current) name Jenny Hutchinson. Hosts of local radio shows generally aren't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Single-station local radio personalities are not automatically presumed notable just because their staff profile on the website of their own employer nominally verifies that they exist — they must be the subject of enough media coverage, in sources other than their own paycheque provider, to clear WP:GNG, but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage about her being shown here at all. And as for that first AFD discussion, when the hell did we ever close an AFD as a keep just because nobody had voted in it within just one week? Bearcat (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete single-station radio personalities are almost never notable, when it is only sourced to that stations own website there is no even remote sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bluffdale, Utah. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bluffdale City Fire Department[edit]

Bluffdale City Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article, referenced only to the city's own primary source website about itself, about a small city's municipal fire department. Fire departments exist and do essentially the same things everywhere, so they are not all extended an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist -- they need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG for a Wikipedia article to become warranted. But there's no evidence being shown that this one has what's required. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fire departments need a lot more than coverage from the city they serve to show notability. Anything worth noting can be included in the article on Bluffdale.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Bluffdale, Utah]Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eyad Alrababah[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP1E concerns; there are no references in the article, but [27] summarizes the situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP; an unsourced article on a living person who is also a low-profile individual, not charged in connection with terrorism. There may be a notable topic here somewhere -- see for example Homeland Insecurity: The Arab American and Muslim American Experience After 9/11 -- but the article would need to fundamentally rewritten and sourced. The notability is marginal at best, so perhaps such article would never get written. So delete per nuke and pave. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing comes close to amounting to a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone held as a witness to even major crimes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a tough one. Unfortunately it has a source so BLPPROD is not an option, even though the source is inappropriate. I agree it would need to be fundamentally rewritten. Re User:Johnpacklambert This doesn't really happen for "minor" crimes, but use of the material witness warrant to indefinitely detain people after 9/11 was a huge deal. There was a Supreme Court case about it. This was discussed in one of the major amici briefs [28]. Alrababah is also mentioned in enough WP:RS (books from academic publishers, and news stories [29]) as one of those detained that it passes WP:BLP1E. But the article needs to be rewritten based on secondary sources, and it might be better to redirect to the al Kidd case. My only concern is that case articles end up becoming long enough that spinouts are sometimes needed for background topics.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Barry[edit]

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

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

Not a notable actor. JDDJS (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article has 0 reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SORA training[edit]

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

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

Article, written like a school's course calendar rather than an encyclopedia article, about a security guard training curriculum. While I have to imagine that a proper encyclopedia article about this would probably be possible, the sourcing here isn't cutting it for making this notable: it's referenced to just two primary sources (a government information page and the self-published web page of a private school that offers the training), not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing meaningful in the article other than primary sources, nothing found in a Google search and the only two links to the article (at [[[Certified Protection Officer]] and Security guard) are in see also sections. Alansohn (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Plus[edit]

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

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

Not a notable company. Neither secondary references nor claims of notability in the article, and none found in Google search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete should have been speedied for being an advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of notability. Natureium (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article was created in 2010 by a WP:SPA and has only ever been a collection of inline external links. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald Ndou[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability requirements for actors. Although this is true of a lot of our articles on actors. We need a major house clearing in this area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a likely commissioned work created by a spam only account. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Knights of Columbus. Not strictly the consensus, but it it was suggested, and seems obvious per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus[edit]

Deputy Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see any coverage outside of KofC-related websites of the role of Deputy Supreme Knight in its own right, only tangentially in that a person being covered might be or have been one. Largoplazo (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Knights of Columbus Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring the lone argument to keep, from a user with very limited editing history and who made no policy-based points, there's unanimous, if thin, consensus to delete. I'll call this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Check LIVE: Ms. Lauryn Hill & Tyrese Gibson[edit]

Mic Check LIVE: Ms. Lauryn Hill & Tyrese Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

none of the sources mention the subject Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV this seems to be a segment from another program that hasn"'t got its own page yet. No proof of notability for this segment Domdeparis (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "withdraw from deletion" "Keep" "withdraw from deletion" The subject is notable and citations have been given representing time and date for this segment in wich was aired The segment is cited with reliable press and resources

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysl33 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysl33: Would you mind saying which of the sources you added as the article's creator mention the subject of this article? I could not find any mention of this in sources. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:GNG and not independently notable. Unclear why we should have an article of this segment. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Pillows discography#Video albums. Michig (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Busters on the Planet[edit]

Busters on the Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't assert notability and has been previously deleted at AfD for exactly the same reason. Amisom (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Participate in a deletion discussion! (distænt write) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Participate in a deletion discussion! (distænt write) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the Pillows. L3X1 Participate in a deletion discussion! (distænt write) 18:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep মাখামাখি (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? Amisom (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Note to closer: The above keep opinion was typed in and saved only 41 seconds after the user's previous !vote in another deletion debate. ––Sam Sailor 21:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dovetail Joint (band), one minute after the votes found by @Sam Sailor: above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the artist article The Pillows as a categorized ((R from album)), cf. WP:MUSICOUTCOMES, seems like a sensible suggestion. The DVD may not meet WP:NALBUMS, but the title is a valid search term. Sam Sailor 21:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Pillows or The Pillows discography. Unsourced and no claim of independent notability.--Auric talk 00:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Pillows discography. The DVD certainly exists but I can find no robust reviews or commentary on it, so it was probably a quickie that was largely ignored by the music press. Not enough notice to achieve notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting to the discography is also fine with we, that's also a typical target for an ((R from album)). (@Doomsdayer520: Notifications only work, if sent in a signed message. I.e. I didn't get the one you added above. But no worries. ) Sam Sailor 21:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Harvey[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is for a cricketer who fails WP:CRIN. He has not played any top level matches, and the team he was signed for (that caused the PROD to be taken off) has been knocked out of the Big Bash without him playing a game. Any remaining coverage is for WP:BLP1E. Spike 'em (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete considering how absurdly low the notability guidelines for cricket players are, I am in shock we actually found someone who does not meet them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to Ian Harvey. Fails standard notability guidelines. SunChaser (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Harvey mentions Mackenzie as a relative, but I don't think any other biographical detail for Mackenzie should be added there. Spike 'em (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zongora[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article. Web searches almost always return Hungarian information about pianos. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The reference, which is cited, is http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaMusic/zongora.htm. Yes, more sourcing would be good, but in 2006 when I wrote this our standards were looser. As far as I know, that is not a reason for deletion. - Jmabel | Talk 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If someone has time to work on this, here is another reference: http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/edu/ViewLoitLo.do;jsessionid=A1AB194299586F5B8C751D8A9E83150A?method=preview&lang=EN&id=11450. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom মাখামাখি (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense – the nominator wants to delete the article, not keep it. Richard3120 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative searches:

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

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

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

• Keep. Easily sourced with just English language sources, now meets WP:GNG. Plenty more sources in Romanian, Hungarian, and German. The trick is to add qualifiers to Zongora, see alt. searches above. The article was not unsourced when it was nominated for deletion. An external link is also a source. Sam Sailor 22:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there's no doubt this instrument exists and has been mentioned in a variety of reliable sources. Probably needs someone proficient in a variety of European languages to be able to improve the article, but that's not a reason for deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working in Partnership Programme (WiPP)[edit]

Working in Partnership Programme (WiPP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability asserted, no sourcing found. All links in article are primary Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This is really a stub with a lot of cites, and I've marked it as such. GBook hits reveal extensive 3rd party discussion of the program. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to General medical services , the uK organization of which this is a minor component.It does need some coverage, but it would be better within the general article. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanity Label[edit]

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

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

A, well, vanity label, more or less, that may have been used by The Format, or may have amounted to nothing. The false hit level is obviously high but I'm not finding anything significant other than the bare association of the band and the label, and I note from our article that the band quit within a year after this label was announced. I'm not utterly adverse to merger to the band but by general commercial standards it seems to me that this would fail notability entirely. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unless it can be WP:V the label actually issued material by The Format. If so, then Merge and redirect. In any case this has no notability outside the band that made the label for their own purposes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: yes, the label did release material by the Format (one studio album, and a couple of live albums and EPs, plus reissues of their previous product on the major label that dropped them) – looking at the covers of these records online, the name of the record label is clearly visible. But that doesn't confer any notability on the label at all, and I'm not sure a redirect would be useful – Wikipedia users searching for "vanity label" will almost certainly be searching for this definition, and as The Vanity Label was 100% associated with the Format, I'm not sure why anyone would search for the label instead of the band, if they were looking for records by the group. Richard3120 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Telecom Italia. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TIM (brand)[edit]

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

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

The brand had no specific notability as a separate article of Telecom Italia. The page had no content other than WP:routine and mostly primary source. Straight delete or turn to redirect Matthew_hk tc 14:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Telecom Italia Mobile is a subsidiary of Telecom Italia, i.e., it is a different company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.137.148 (talk) 2018-01-25T14:28:41‎

@189.69.137.148:, the article was under Telecom Italia Mobile namespace circa 2015 and contains some controversy in Brazil (which was moved to TIM Brasil). However, the concern was the subsidiary/brand itself lack of WP:GNG and WP:RS (secondary independent source). Wikipedia is not a place that spam of every subsidiary of major company of Europe. Matthew_hk tc 14:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 14:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing suggests that the subject has WP:ORG notability separate from Telecom Italia.--Rpclod (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Or redirect per below.--Rpclod (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Telecom Italia Is at the very least the company's front-facing brand; their logos are all over Italian sports at the very least (and they're the main sponsor of Serie A). Nate • (chatter) 18:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Telecom Italia. Brands are a part of of the parent company and the notability (sponsoring events, advertisements, etc) are a result of the parent company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cad-Capture Group[edit]

Cad-Capture Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While there does appear to be some hits in reliable sources, they don't appear to be significant as it appears that they primarily discuss Barclays (one of their clients). Actual coverage specifically about the company appears to be lacking. A7 was declined by SoWhy Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Significant RS coverage not found; just a directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deleting. I was the one that created this article in draft format - how do I check the draft page? This person who created it has just just taken it and pasted it on to the page. It was in draft for a reason, I was still working on compiling it with more content and sources. Thief. X6540 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see logo here which was added by me, back in September 2017. I will eventually publish this, but as it stands, it isn't ready and should be deleted until more content and sources are added (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cad-Capture_Logo.png&action=history) X6540 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Stolen with no additional content and/or sources added in order to be eligible as a fully fledged wiki. Support for DELETION. User:X6540 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable Ratsama (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Mountz Zeigler[edit]

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

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

No reliable independent sources for this person. Fram (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails GNG, NBIO. What is the "gay corner" and how is it a claim to significance. A7? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - article fails WP:NBIO. Definitley WP:A7 - will add speedy delete template. --Kirbanzo (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have found out that the author is a permabanned user, so they cannot contest a speedy deletion. Shouldn't affect this though. -Kirbanzo (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph’s College of Law[edit]

St. Joseph’s College of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill college. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. References are PRIMARY sources or are based on announcements. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : non-notable institution; no alumni of note, apparently. Quis separabit? 02:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail.com, Notable alumni are not required and do not add to notability of the article subject. See WP:ITSA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...whilst AADD also has WP:OUTCOMESBASED, I would agree that it's not a very good reason.But, have you missed non-notable institution?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain My understanding is that tertiary educational institutions are of their nature notable. This is a brand new institution, so not many references yet, but three references given are: to the media source daijiworld.com where it is listed as a top story (though sourced from the Director of the school); on the KonKanCatholic website, by the editor; and as a news article in News Karnataka. Please give it time to attract more media attention, it's not five months old! Jzsj (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the RfC that Necrothesp so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry? Did the RfC suddenly mutate from a discussion about secondary schools to one about tertiary institutions? I hadn't realised that it was in fact secretly about all educational institutions! Maybe you'd care to explain to all of us where it says this? Because my reading is that it refers to secondary schools only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm..To be fair, N is correct and that's actually a non-weigh-able !vote.Please re-correct your arguments.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:UNI/AG#Notability. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My nomination was based on my assessment of this topic according to WP:NCORP for "organizations/companies". Is this law school a commercial profit-oriented organization? Without independent coverage in reliable sources, it fails GNG regardless of which guidelines is used. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have never considered education institutions to fall into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not aware of the various discussions such as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES until now, but I have now read that and some others. I note that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that WP:ORG forms part of the notability guidelines for schools and colleges, so I am sticking with my nomination. Policy such as GNG states that independent in-depth sources must be available. The purpose of the guidelines available at WP:UNI/AG#Notability is not to provide educational institutions with an "easier" standard for inclusion and in my opinion, if less that two intellectually independent sources are available for any school or college, then it fails WP:ORG and therefore the topic also fails GNG. The essays and guidelines are not instead of policy, but to assist editors in interpreting policy. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a policy, HighKing. Indeed, the preamble contains the statement: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.. There is a clearly a number of users, probably deletionists, who are not aware of the many exceptions to notability guidelines, exceptions which incientaly do not only include various educational institutions. These exceptions are documented and are have been widely acccepted by the community for many years, as demonstrated in hundreds of AfD closures thus establishing clear precedents which we observe. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that your'e not in a very good pedestal to brand others as deletionists.Just, IMO. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Per nominator. Pure business entities, spawning out every here and there.This thread may be of some interest.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, Approved by the Bar Council of India in New Delhi, such a school even if relatively new, is hardly in need of advertising itself to those wishing to pursue a career in law. Whilst I, as an experienced page patroller and deleting admin, would agree that many, if not most one-liners are spam, this is clearly not so. 12:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)[reply]

@Kudpung:--That comes from an unfamiliarity with the Indian Education system.Any law-callege must be mandatorily affiliated by BCI or be subject to immediate closure as an illegal entity sans some exceptional cases.And these private colleges or degree-mills are in need of advertisement, to attract students and a WP entry surely helps in achieving that.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right @Winged Blades of Godric:, and I would certainly bow to your better knowledge of the Indian education system - I have never worked there in law schools. Perhaps we should examine this in context with Karnataka State Law University because while there is no proof that it is a mill, we don't hesitate to mention the fact in such articles if there are sufficient RS. Ironically, that would then be a good reason not to delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering colleges and/or law colleges coupled with Bangalore is a red flag.AFAIR, a few years back, a TOI media-unit reported Bangalore to be a city where you will get to see more engineering/law colleges than sanitation facilities per street! KSLU etc. are definitely notable despite the self-sourced pathetic-state of the articles and I'll be happy enough to have it redirected to there.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. all degree-granting intstitutions are considered notable atWP. It is better to maintain thixs tule than to try to argue details about each one individually. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instituition or mill?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Does this college grant its own degrees? This appears to say that it grants degrees from Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi? Let me know. If it does grant its own degrees, then hey hey hey!. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as you know, the situation in India is complicated, and in the process of changing. For many decades there was essentially no mechanism for a new college to get degree-granting authority,so theyawarded degrees through some existing institution, which essentially rubber-stamped them on the basis of the certificate of the actual teaching institution. But there are also numerous branches of some college systems best treated together. DGG ( talk ) 11:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, you say that the situation in India is complicated and I admit that I have no idea how things operate in India. Since the basis of the Keep !votes here appear to rely on established consensus and interpretation that a college that grants its own degrees is notable, the onus is on the Keep !voters to show that this institution meets these criteria. But clearly, strictly speaking, this college does not grant its own degrees. Given that the situation in India is complicated, is it also an established consensus to make allowances for complicated situations (like India)? If so, can you point me to somewhere? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Situations as complicated as India need be considered individually, for they are too diverse to have established practice. For the specific case of India, I think it really has to go university by university. The alternative to individual articles is a merged article, and for any university system anywhere in the world, this has to be considered. Among the key factors is the importance of the individual institution (in terms of prestige, how long its been established, number of graduates, importance in its local region, etc.) , the independence of the institution, the amount of information available, the importance of the group, and the nature of the group. For groups of institutions under common management, we often merge, especially if the existing articles are uniform and uniformly promotional . For branch campuses, we merge until they have established significance in their own right, For institutions that merely use another institution for the convenience of awarding degrees, we tend to keep separate. India is distinctive mainly in the number & complexity of the systems and the various chronological layers of development, many of which seem to exist simultaneously ind inconsistently, but almost all the particular arrangements also occurs elsewhere . (It's not the immediate situation here, but one factor to keep in mind, in India and elsewhere, is the tendency to have some degree of lose affiliation with more prestigious organizations--these are often in the nature of mere transfer arrangements to recognize the credits, but the college articles tend to make a very great deal of them for obvious promotional reasons. I usually remove them from the lead and the infobox.)

The GNG offers no help here, even to the extent it applies at all: in one of its realistic statements, it says that for organizations that meet notability , there can still be combination articles if there is insufficient information for full articles. There is no clear-cut basis for makin gsuch choices. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard St.Ofle[edit]

Richard St.Ofle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NARTIST. Run-of-the-mill artist. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the fact it was created by an SPA is irrelevant for deletion discussions. The valid question is whether or not there are good sources in the article and in general. the answer to that is no.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Geiger[edit]

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

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

We have one reliable source (Birosik) which spends 3 sentences on Geiger (his album or tape "Impressions"). The quote "These albums are among the finest examples of New Age Vocal music released to date" is not about Geiger but about the previous entry in that book, Gass. The next two lines, plus one extra line in the book after it, is all we have on Geiger from reliable sources. The second source in the article is not reliable, which means that we have no reliable sources for his biographical information, and only one short source about one piece of music he made. All I could find otherwise were some passing mentions, people thanking Geiger for help with a book or so. Fram (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are no sources giving the indepth coverage we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fear[edit]

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

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

Have tried to improve this article. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Keeley[edit]

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

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

Lack of notability, Afd rather than csd because there is a slim claim of notability, but the businessman of the year award is very local. TheLongTone (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator: this subject does not meet WP:BIO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of company CEOs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete zero claim to notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Dawkins[edit]

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

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

This is a courtesy nomination raised on request of the subject, Julius Dawkins, via VRTS ticket # 2017122610007168. The rationale submitted in the OTRS ticket is used below with Julius' consent.

I would like to start this discussion with, for reasons I do not want to disclose. The existence of my article puts my family and myself safety at risk. Because the information in it might be used to trace my family and trace me, and while it is available elsewhere at the moment. It would tremendously help my family and especially me to feel more secure. I have asked the NFL to remove my information for the same reasons. They immediately remove my whole profile from their website. I truly hope you will do the same!!!! Nthep (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So... how are we supposed to treat this? Do we take his plea into account? Ignore it and !vote based on policies and guidelines? Or is it up to our own individual discretions? Lizard (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard:

• Comment this is intriguing. I checked the policy (WP:BIODELETE) and it says:

I would take this to mean that it will be deleted according to the request, unless there is a particularity good reason to keep it, that would have to be the article subject is 'notable' and a 'public figure', and the article would have to be well sourced.

I can't tell if he is 'notable' or a 'public figure' because that is dictated by a subject specific guideline I know little about, and he is an American football player which I also know nothing about. However, the article is not well sourced, and since the subject has gone to the lengths to actively remove sources, it may be hard to find more. I would say the article should probably be deleted for this reason, though simply removing all unsourced information and adding references could fix this.

I was under the impression that America was quite safe, I don't understand how or why there is a risk issue involved, and if there is a valid protection issue, I understand that the WikiMedia Foundation could oversighter the article for legal reasons without an AfD, so I will ignore that entirely. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Well, he meets WP:NGRIDIRON by having played in the NFL. He also had a pretty decent college football career. He's definitely Wikipedia notable; he probably isn't real life notable. So I'd say he falls under "relatively unknown, non-public figure." Lizard (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term public figure has legal meaning under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. and their progeny. I don't know if there's case law directly on point, but at least one supposed expert (here) has stated: "A semi-professional football player, for instance, may not be considered a public figure though he may be known to many people within the region his team represents. However, someone who plays football in the NFL is most likely a public figure, due to his national prominence." Aside from having played in the NFL, Dawkins was a first-team All-American. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep how do we know this is on the level? Did the person who submitted the UTRS ticket prove his identity? The subject passes the notability guidelines quite clearly, and the information in the article is all 25+ years old. It's not like we are telling people where he lives now. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer Did the person who submitted the UTRS ticket prove his identity? - yes. Nthep (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with 3 caveats. Clearly passes multiple notability standards, including WP:NGRIDIRON (played in NFL), WP:NCOLLATH (first-team All-American), and WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Also, as noted above, I doubt he qualifies as a "non-public figure." More importantly, I fail to see how Wikipedia's publication of information about his football career which ended 34 years ago could threaten his safety or allow him to be traced. This information is widely available from multiple on-line sources, including Pro-Football-Reference.com (here), SR/College Football (here), ArenaFan.com (here), and Pro Football Archives (here). Further, Dawkins' assertion that the NFL removed his "whole profile" from its web site is simply untrue. His profile remains at nfl.com (here) though date and place of birth are absent. The concessions I would suggest are to (i) remove his date and place of birth from the article (as was done at nfl.com), as those pieces of data could be used for tracing purposes, (ii) prohibit adding information about his current details (which are presently absent and should not be added); and (iii) protecting the article so it can only be edited by registered users. With those caveats, I support keeping the article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Mr. Dawkins' comments at the talk page. His primary concern appears to be with DOB and place of residence. This reinforces my belief that the three restrictions I proposed above are appropriate measures. I would also be fine with a higher level of page protection. I have removed the year of birth and place of birth from the article during the pendency of this discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cbl's reasoning and caveats. Lizard (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sorry but this is a bit silly and a little over dramatic on the part of Dawkins. Just being honest here.--Yankees10 17:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, without the caveats. Easily meets WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in 27 games with the Buffalo Bills of the National Football League. Also passes WP:NCOLLATH as a first-team All-American college football player. The information in question is basic biographical data on a public figure that is readily and easily available elsewhere on the web. I fail to see how posting a birthdate and place of birth could possibly pose any type of security issue. It's not like we're putting his social security number out there or anything. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ignore all rules -- If the family is at risk (and I will assume good faith in his comments) then we can remove the article. I'd rather keep it, but sometimes you just say "what the hey"--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl3, with date and place of birth removed. I would also suggest removing the high school information which is not all that easily available. But the remainder of the article is very public and easily accessible. I would suggest that the subject also contact Pro Football Reference if there is an issue, because some of the information that may be troubling is listed there. Rlendog (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the high school information, per my comment above. If there is any other information that could be used to trace the subject or create a security threat I would be happy to remove that too. But right now I think it is generic information that exceeds what actually still remains of the nfl.com profile in that it mentions a sentence about his college career, which I think would be troubling to remove since he was an All-American and thus thus this information is widely and easily accessible with or without Wikipedia, and a sentence about the Arena Football League, which was professional and again not difficult to discover outside Wikipedia but since that is a lower level than the NFL I think we can remove that if it is really causing a problem for the subject. Rlendog (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIODELETE; the subject has requested deletion and we should honour that. The article's subject is of marginal notability, while the article contains minimal encyclopedically relevant prose, enough to confirm that the subject exists. The presence of his article on Wikipedia does not add that much; its absence would not harm the project -- while it may harm the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contrary to individual's assertions, the NFL has not removed his bio from their website. This gives me serious doubts about the credibility of the message, or its origin. Smartyllama (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Although note what happens when you click on the "Profile" tab, Smartyllama. I presume that used to bring up a written biography. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As part of the OTRS exchange I have seen the confirmation from the NFL that content has been removed from their website. Nthep (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. publicffigure, and I cannot imagine any possible danger from the material presently in the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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