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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Dodson[edit]

David M. Dodson (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)

Politician who hasn't been elected to a notable office yet and his business career is not notable. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article reads too much like a puff piece, not a balanced, unbiased article.TH1980 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable individual, not enough showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Marquardtika (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in future elections — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to pass WP:NPOL. But this shows no evidence of preexisting notability at all: outside of his campaign-related coverage itself, this is referenced entirely to blogs and primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, which are not support for notability at all, and the couple of pieces of campaign-related coverage don't automatically hand him a WP:GNG pass, because every candidate in any election could always show some of that. We are not a free publicity venue for aspiring officeholders to post their campaign brochures — if he wins the election in November, then obviously he'll clear NPOL as an actual elected officeholder, and the article can then be recreated as his basis for notability will have changed. But no, nothing here qualifies him to have an article just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- He doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN nor is his business career notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NPOL L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had no idea who he is, but happened across an article about his candidacy in the Jackson Hole, WY, daily a few days ago and searched to see if Wikipedia had an article about him. He's not a politician but he's running for office. He takes the time to teach courses during the spring and fall semester at what is arguably (not my opinion, but that of prestigious rating organizations) the best school of business in the U.S., though he certainly doesn't need the money. He's done extremely well in business since earning an MBA at Stanford, and used that success to co-found and direct a non-profit that reaches 25 million undernourished people throughout the Third World and which has high ratings from organizations that evaluate the footprint and corporate accountability of non-profits. He's started up and been the CEO of many firms. I only checked one, at random from the article's list, but it was extremely successful and acquired by AutoZone twenty years ago after it had grown to 112 stores. He would have been 36 at the time. He had a major part in developing grain processing equipment that enables underdeveloped countries to raise nutrition standards with local facilities. I got a very strong impression that up to the present, he may have tried to avoid the limelight. He's certainly not Forbes 400 material, but I expect he's worth eight to nine figures. I find myself impressed by him. He's what is probably a moderate Republican running against an establishment incumbent, as an Independent, in the most Republican state in the U.S. I don't think Wikipedia should host junk articles, but I've run across copious amounts of those that aren't worth the electrons that support them, like ones I stumbled across featuring, i.e., voice actors whose careers consisted entirely of parts in a couple of anime shorts that probably disappeared before they aired three times. So, my perspective is, "Where's the harm in keeping it?" I don't think we should be, in November, like an astonished Butch Cassidy asking the Sundance Kid, "Who are these guys??? Activist (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Politicians get articles on here by holding office, not by just running for it — and otherwise they need to have already qualified for an article for some other reason independently of having been a candidate per se. But none of what you pointed out constitutes grounds for a Wikipedia article at all. We don't keep poorly sourced articles about people just to highlight how "remarkable" somebody thinks their record of accomplishment must be — reliable sourcing has to tell us that their record of accomplishment satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, but nothing here does. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. To me it seems like @Activist:'s premise is based off of a hypothetical that he is elected in November and then we won't have an article for him since it would have been deleted assuming the AFD goes through. But in truth the subject doesn't fit the criteria for the article UNLESS he is elected in the first place. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree. His combined substantial accomplishments in global business and philanthropy merit an article, and his teaching at Stanford GSB adds to that, entirely exclusive of his small chance of success in current electoral politics. Activist (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: I don't think he meets WP:ACADEMIC simply by being a lecturer. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 13:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where's the reliable sourcing (which means media coverage about it, not primary source verification in self-published content produced by the organizations he was involved with) to demonstrate that any of that prior work satisfies a Wikipedia notability criterion? Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing here to substantiate him as a notable politician as per WP:POLITICIAN... hasn't even been elected. Otherwise, nothing else of note here, not an academic either. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:20, 1 March 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Boud[edit]

Charles H. Boud (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 county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only source is freeholder meeting minutes (primary source, without even a date) and the Manual of the Legislature of New Jersey, 1884 (which I'm guessing is just a directory). Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 22 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. Noting also the concerns about copyright violation. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lois A. Cuccinello[edit]

Lois A. Cuccinello (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 county level politician. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Article doesn't contain sourcing but actually appears to be a copy and paste job from here [1]. Not that it really matters because the subject is not notable anyway. Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article contains blatant plagiarism from the source cited by Rusf10. TH1980 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hyperlocal New Jersey politician not otherwise independently notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. County freeholder is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass for every person who ever held the role, but this article cites no evidence of reliable source coverage about her for the purposes of NPOL #2, and is in large part an outright WP:COPYVIO from one of its WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as COPYVIO and NPOL, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, from these references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:21, 1 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Race game (paper and pencil game)[edit]

Race game (paper and pencil game) (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 fails WP:V, as it's been unreferenced for over 15 years. It reads like it was made up, and I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I remember playing something similar to this but the only source I can find is here, based off of here, or on a forum: [2] I don't want to vote delete, but I know it's only because WP:ILIKEIT. Perhaps an opportunity to merge and improve pencil flick? SportingFlyer (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources cited. Would be a neat article if it was. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - with Racetrack (game) - There is already an article for this, though it is slightly different in that this uses grids - they are a variation on this. I used to play this at school too, like 40 years ago!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not sure how much there is to merge here, but I wouldn't be opposed to preserving the content if it can be sourced. Otherwise, doesn't appear really to be a notable topic. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:17, 2 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EBitcoin[edit]

EBitcoin (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. Promotional wording. Few secondary, reliable sources. Most results for it on google are sites like Coinmarketcap, that just show it's current value. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: About 2 minutes after I nom'd this, I checked it for a copyvio. Evidently, most of it was copied from this. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yet another promotional Bitcoin article. No evidence of any notability but plenty of evidence of promotional editing. Despite all the refs, fails WP:GNG.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and is a violation of WP:PROMO. (In all likelihood it is another scamcoin co-opting the BTC name.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We are not Bitcoinpedia L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Legit This article is legit. I am a user of this currency and this cryptocurrency exists and is used by thousands people. All the references exists and this is not a promotion, no commercial product is to sell. At the beginning, all the token have been given to the community, for free (airdrop). This is now a foundation driven by a community. This community won many votes listing (example : https://www.reddit.com/r/eBTC/comments/7s78j7/ebitcoin_made_the_1st_place_on_kucoins_community/). Capitalisation is more than 10 millions dollars and daily exchanges are important : https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ebtcnew/#markets . This article has to be kept. Thank you very much and enjoy your day. unsigned comment by JRC21

Oh, it's legitimately a cryptocurrency. It exists, it has a customer base. But, it is not notable. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt, per nom and Hrodvarsson. We should be careful not to legitimise malicious cryptocurrencies - we do not want to become an instrument in someone else's scam. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 21:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not agreed, it's clearly not malicious, this cryptocurrency exists and works since september 2017. You should read references, this currency is legit and this page has to exist. I donated a lot of money to Wikipedia and I feel a bit shocked of that I read here. Please read the references and check the market exchanges to observe that it's not malicious. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC21 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not being nominated for deletion because it is malicious. I understand that you may feel frustrated that it might be deleted, but please realize that Wikipedia is not a place to have every and any piece of verifiable information. We are an encyclopedia, and EBitcoin simply isn't notable enough to be included on it. Thank you for your donation, but it will not bend guidelines and policies. It's not malicious, but it's not notable. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I donated a lot of money to Wikipedia and I feel a bit shocked of that I read here Strike this, please. It makes it sound a little too much like you're trying to bribe us. I know this is frustrating, and that's probably not your intention, but that is how I think people will read it, and... honestly, it makes me a little uncomfortable. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Making a note of the fact that JRC21 has !voted keep two different times, neither of which were signed. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 22:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Thanks for your answer. Yes it is frustrated cause yes I am a wiki helper and yes I spent many times on that wiki page and finally removed most of informations I written. This currency is legit and exists since half a year. Community is important and it's increasing each day. This currency is notable and many publications have been done (this one from a famous crypto influencer : https://www.cryptocriterion.com/ebtc-nakamotos-vision/ ). Please tell me what I have to remove in this wiki page to be published ? Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC21 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the article is not notable, there is nothing you can do to the article to make it notable. Also "cryptocriterion" is not established as a reliable source, and the egregiously promotional tone of the article makes me more convinced this is another scamcoin (100% premine is enough of a tell anyway, to be honest). Also recommending salting in addition to my original delete vote. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG - to many crypto currencies to have them all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but undecided on salting. JRC21, if this currency were to gain notability, nothing's to say you shouldn't be able to create an article then, but it's WP:TOOSOON if that becomes the case, at the current moment. You could adapt the article into your sandbox and save it for now that way, but I would not recreate the article unless it becomes more notable. Review WP:N for a good understanding of what notability is. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:24, 2 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Binard[edit]

Julianne Binard (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 actress with virtually no coverage in RS and only minor roles. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No RS Agricola44 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage anywhere to indicate notability sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. She's had some bit parts in various films here and there, but nothing significant. The article claims she will "star" in "Il était une seconde fois", a film being produced by a 1 employee production studio in Paris (see listing). Also be aware; the same article on fr.wikipedia has been creation protected. The same IP that has been repeatedly recreating the article over there has also significantly edited the article here and added a link from fr:Il était une seconde fois to here, since they can't link it locally there due to multiple deletions, creating a sort of a circular "notable because she's notable" loop. Also, the prime creator of the content here has uploaded a copyright violation to Commons several times, and is on a last warning over there for the behavior (see c:User talk:Azidonis). What Commons does isn't relevant to keeping this article, but I raise it because we appear to have one or more people striving very hard to push an article forward about this person, regardless of any policies or guidelines we have on fr.wikipedia, Commons, or here. I'm not suggesting a salting, but rather those who are interested may want to watch this article if it gets deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but... There are probably just fans of her trying to make her known by a largest public via the Internet. Because they are interested in her and whatnot. That is the reason why they’re mostly using IMDb, etc as sources whose informations are probably written by the agency itself; given that they are the only sources we know + her CV via her talent agency. Even though pushing the article about her forward the way they do doesn’t match with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I fully understand, those people are trying to keep and let some traces of capital and basic informations regarding her. One day she’ll definitely be even more famous by getting more and more important roles in the future. We’re waiting. But to conclude; don’t other sites consider Wikipedia as a non-reliable source likewise? We may stay sceptical about that. --

User:Hamelett (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable, No RS, possibly promotional. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:30, 1 March 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. WP:SNOW SmartSE (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PuppySpot[edit]

PuppySpot (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)

Per WP:NOTADVERT and failure to meet basic requirements of WP:NCORP. Much like other doggy day care articles up for deletion e.g. Halo Dogs‎. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly fulfills "basic" requirements of WP:NCORP. The company has "attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization" per the references provided in the article. Plot Spoiler (talk)

Note I have just blocked Plot Spoiler as an undisclosed paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete highly promotional, fails WP:ORGIND scope_creep (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. MER-C 14:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire, obvious spam. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 16:42, 23 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Thee Mardi Gras[edit]

Live at Thee Mardi Gras (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the weird spelling there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 19:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:38, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Real Swedish Live Show[edit]

A Real Swedish Live Show (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the weird spelling there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:38, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Thee Pyramid[edit]

Live at Thee Pyramid (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the weird spelling there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 19:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:39, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Thee Ritz[edit]

Live at Thee Ritz (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases Atlantic306 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the weird spelling there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 19:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:39, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Berlin Wall[edit]

Live at the Berlin Wall (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography per WP:ATD. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Does not meet WP:NALBUM but there may be sufficient enough interest in the album to point the reader towards their discography. Blank and redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 20:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:39, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bender (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:TWODABS. The entrepreneur is the obvious primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: have fixed redirects and hatnotes so that the dab is unnecessary. As the late musician has been a redirect to his band since 2009 I think we can take the businessman as primary topic. PamD 09:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed as above - the muso bio is just a redirect to their band. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:32, 1 March 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Heaven[edit]

Live in Heaven (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, this could well be the name of something else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 19:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:37, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Glasgow (Psychic TV album)[edit]

Live in Glasgow (Psychic TV album) (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the disambiguation there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 19:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:37, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live En Suisse[edit]

Live En Suisse (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, there could be something else of this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 19:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:37, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Tokyo (Psychic TV album)[edit]

Live in Tokyo (Psychic TV album) (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the disambiguation there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 13:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:37, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Paris (Psychic TV album)[edit]

Live in Paris (Psychic TV album) (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, though with the disambiguation there's unlikely to be any harm in having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). I have added three references to sources, two of them French. More work may prove that the notability guideline for recordings can be met. Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:37, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

N.Y. Scum[edit]

N.Y. Scum (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect, it's possible something else would have this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, may be a valid search term for other users. If something else had this title, we would sort it with hatnotes or eventually a DAB page. Sam Sailor 12:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:36, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Atonal Vol. 1[edit]

Berlin Atonal Vol. 1 (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, may be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 10:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:36, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. czar 01:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Atonal Vol. 2[edit]

Berlin Atonal Vol. 2 (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. --Michig (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; no refs in article. I don't see the need for a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, may be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 10:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:36, 25 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 Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Consider redirecting these yourself before taking them to AfD next time. Uncontested redirects save everyone time. czar 02:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Temple & Atonal[edit]

Temporary Temple & Atonal (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)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM FamblyCat94 (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - will contact the nominator and request more information on dozens of mass-produced album AfD's today that say nothing more than "Does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM" ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography per WP:ATD. --Michig (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases. Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and redirect does not merit the purpose in relation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as proposed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as a categorized ((R from album)) and ((R to section)). Redirects are cheap, and what may not appear to be needed by one user, might be a valid search term for other users. Sam Sailor 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the discography, per the above commments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Live releases as recommended by everyone else, and do the same for all of the other Psychic TV albums that were mass-AfD'ed by FamblyCat94 on Feb. 15. More than a dozen such AfD's are still sitting in the music/albums sort pile and the verdict can be the same for all. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 26 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ghana heads of state by age[edit]

List of Ghana heads of state by age (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 trivially sorted list. No notability in sorting Ghanaian presidents by their ages. Especially useless when considering List of heads of state of Ghana exists. Indy beetle (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTTRIVIA. All the content we need to know exist on List of heads of state of Ghana. Ajf773 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTTRIVIA. Their ages can be added to List of heads of state of Ghana if there's consensus that the information is valuable (I don't think it is, personally, but other people's mileages may vary), but there's no need of a separate standalone list. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, duplication of info that can be put on an already existing page.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:33, 1 March 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! 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Kirby[edit]

Rick Kirby (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)

Before isn't returning enough to suggest notability and the refs in the article are very weak. The article reads like the bio of a respected but routine sculptor. There is currently an AfD about a piece of his work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I advocate keeping this article with content merged from Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture), the refs are weak, but in my opinion just sufficient to pass notability requirements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content you merged back appears to be have had been completely rebutted in the other AfD so is of little value. In the event that article is deleted then those references should be discounted for the purpose of this Afd and this difference used [3]. Please do not leave uncivil comments on my talkpage. Szzuk (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ouch. That was supposed to be a nice quote to go with the one on your userpage ... But really my thoughts revolve around looking at the subject in context with what I must presume is his most notable creation. Ideally this AfD would have followed the other one, but I think it's likely that Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) will be deleted, so we can work from there. While it's true that most the references were rebutted to varying degrees by Editør in the other AfD, it is not clear how they will fare in relation to the creator rather than the sculpture, or exactly what is in Cocke 2009, but it's for others to decide on this, I am not !voteing, just pointing out the merge concept I developed for the other AfD. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is little information about the work or artist on the helmet page itself, a merge there would be better. Szzuk (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This proposal is inspired by Szzuk's vote to delete Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) (see discussion), and seems more like an attempt to prove a point there, than a reflection of a belief that Kirby is not notable. Kirby's sculptures have been unveiled by the Queen, by Princess Margaret, by, Prince Edward, and by Seamus Heaney. More references can be come by if necessary, but I believe the threshold of notability is easily met. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references are weak, what point am i proving? Szzuk (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about artworks are rarely kept if their creator has no article, as above, ideally this AfD would have followed the other one, but as they are happening concurrently I would urge Usernameunique to find some references for this royal connection. The additional references are probably necessary. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The salient point about notability is whether the references exist, not whether they are all used in the article. Otherwise, to take as example a page that Szzuk created, Alyn Waters would be in serious trouble. Prince of Thieves, here are some royal references: 1, 2, 3, 4. And some more references: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those. I will point out a few things, first I doubt Alyn Waters would survive AfD undeleted. Second, you can't assume people will know of sources they can't find, not everyone can pierce the ProQuest paywall. As I said before, I think the references are weak but just sufficient to show notability, and I am sticking with that for now. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You added 16 unreliable sources to your new sutton hoo helmet sculpture page. On the 8th of January 2018 you added all but one of the references to this article and they too are unreliable sources. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Szzuk So just picking one source at random, this, how is it not WP:RS? Please explain. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the author of the page is a paid consultancy company - axle arts. The piece is little more than a paid for advert for the exhibition, hardly independent. Szzuk (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is about an exhibition at Bath Contemporary, which is connected to Axle Arts; but where do you get the idea that the author of the article is itself Axle Arts? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't say it was written by Axle Arts, it actually clearly states says the author is Jessica Hope, the Assistant Editor at The Bath Magazine. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her name isn't on the page you linked me to - but a link to axle arts is. The magazine clearly states they take editorial submissions. Szzuk (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Her name is clearly there. (see below). The editorial submissions are clearly marked and this isn't one. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<span class="cb-hide" itemprop="author" itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/Person"><meta itemprop="name" content="Jessica Hope"></span><meta itemprop="headline" content="His implacable gaze: Sculptor Rick Kirby at Bath Contemporary">

• The meta data means she uploaded it to her website, her name isn't on the article and there is no copyright claim. It appears this is the best reference? And it is disputed. Szzuk (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This meta-data is specifically that attached to the author, not the uploader which is separate, and a different person. Copyright is asserted, to the Magazine and MC Publishing Limited (publisher of the magazine), which is consistent with an article written by a inhouse staff member. I am not in the best position to argue the other references, since a substantial number are paywalled and I can't access them. But I am happy to debate the ones I can access. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk, to be fair, you are the only one who has disputed it, and most of what you have said about it is incorrect. First, you said the author is Axle Arts; this is demonstrably false. Second, you suggested that the article is an editorial submission; this is demonstrably false. Third, you suggested that the author uploaded the article "to her website," which trivializes Bath Magazine (e.g., we wouldn't call nytimes.com "Eric Lichtblau's website"). Also, saying "It appears this is the best reference?" ignores Prince of Thieves's statement that this example is "just picking one source at random". --Usernameunique (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to put that together, Prince of Thieves. I've added two more sources (re: Hands ), and an archived copy of the dead URL. If time permits, I'll add the others you mentioned tonight, including the bibliographic information for the paywalled sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added eleven sources to the article. Hopefully this puts notability beyond doubt; between ProQuest and Factiva there are dozens of articles about Kirby's work, not to mention the 356,000 hits that Googling 'Rick Kirby sculpture' reveals. The new sources are:

Wiltshire Gazette & Herald 2002

Hoggard 2002 (in The Independent)

Hope 2017 (Bath Magazine, as discussed)

Lonsdale 2002 (in The Daily Telegraph)

Morton 2005 (in the Sevenoaks Chronicle)

Marcelle Joseph 2012

The Times 2000

Essex Chronicle Series 2005

Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District 2017

The Independent 2002

Public Art Port Marine --Usernameunique (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep more than enough references to reliable sources such as Times, Telegraph, Independent also having public works in the Palace of Westminster for a pass of WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Ideally we'd have 2 bios or in depth articles on the subject Rick Kirby, that we don't have. Refs as numbered above 8, 11 and 13 mention the subject but don't represent significant coverage, there are a couple more similar refs that have been placed in the article so the issue of notability is less clear. How many mentions supplant 2 good bios? Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 3:1, more if the mentions are meagre, but generally sources about an artists work are sufficient. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't dispute the approximation, but it is a subjective call. Certainly at the start of this AfD it appeared to be an obvious delete. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair it could technically still go either way, since although there are plenty of good sources, none of them are what you define as an in depth neutral biography. But having a number of his works unveiled by royalty (including the current British Queen), and numerous mentions of him and his work in reliable sources, and a number of very public works commissioned by public bodies, is liable to swing it to a keep regardless. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still think this is a delete, my feeling is that there are lots of sculptors and artists of similar calibre and his work appears WP:Routine. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • heh, to answer that would require me assessing his calibre. But I do know the British Queen has done over 15,000 official engagements, and many of those involve unveiling artwork, she has been doing it full time for decades. But however routine it is, it is still top the top tier of British sculpture. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I almost forgot, WP:Routine only applies to events, not people. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be plenty of RS here on mr Kirby - including a Times article. Seems notable and a major contributor to sculpture. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an admittedly minor contemporary artist with sufficient notability/sourcing to pass WP:ARTIST. This Telegraph article that devotes 3 paragraphs to his large sculpture at Portishead is typical of coverage of him A new start for the art in residence Suddenly, they're everywhere - bold figures in metal and stone without which no new development is complete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 1 March 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ 3D[edit]

DJ 3D (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)

Reading this article, it seems it is a rather promotion article in tone. #2 and #3 of the 3 sources are dead links and #1 source is a general source with little to no reference (at least easily accessible).

Its perhaps best selling sentence is "Together under the name King of Beats, they released several notable music projects including the record “Burn,” which won the duo a Grammy nomination for Record of the Year in 1992."

and the external links are to his public pages. Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaguan tea factory[edit]

Xiaguan tea factory (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)

It's possible to verify that the Xiaguan tea factory exists[19][20] but that's about it. This article is based entirely on a livejournal post. No significant, in-depth coverage in independent sources. This could be a really interesting subject but we can't be sure if all the details in this article are even real, or are made up. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough information here to confirm notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No references to say why it's important. What sets it apart from an ordinary tea company that we wouldn't cover? Nothing, therefore it truly is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:45, 1 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tallia Storm[edit]

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

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

No evidence of any significant notability. Has supported other acts and appeared on a couple of shows. The book deal appears to be a ghost writing deal but no evidence that any books are notable. The article reads like a promo piece and has been subject to much copyvio and use of unreliable sources. Still many unreliable sources used . Fails WP:NMUSIC and fails WP:CELEBRITY  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has failed to do anything notable since appearing on stage at an EJ concert in scotland a few years ago, resulting in this article and some A&R work by a SPA editor. Fails GNG and the flimsy PR sources currently in the article really dont cut the mustard. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, as per above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:39, 1 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Kramdens[edit]

The Kramdens (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)

Unreferenced article, with some advertorialized undertones, about a band with no genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC as it stands in 2018. While there was once a time when having one independently notable member who qualified for his own WP:BLP was enough to pass #6, that's since been bumped up to two -- and even the one independently notable member gets over on his work as a radio broadcaster, not his work as a musician. Nothing else here really passes any other bulletpoint in NMUSIC, and on a ProQuest search I can't find very strong evidence of a WP:GNG pass -- outside of a bit of purely local coverage in the Guelph-Kitchener-Waterloo triangle itself (but not enough of that to really mount a claim that they would pass NMUSIC #7), all I get otherwise is glancing namechecks of their existence in WP:ROUTINE concert calendars and completely irrelevant accidental text matches in articles about The Honeymooners. A redirect to Craig Norris would also be acceptable, if desired, but nothing here satisfies NMUSIC as it now stands. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am in agreement with the nominator. The band has achieved some local celebrity in their area, but despite a long history I also can find little beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Craig Norris deserves his own article as a radio personality, and his membership in this local band is already mentioned there. They're close to WP:NBAND notability but not quite. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bearcat, there is not enough to establish notability here and does not pass WP:NMUSIC. And yes, when I saw this I thought it would be an article about the Honeymooners, so anyone who votes keep is going to the moon!--Rusf10 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, doesn't seem to come anywhere near to passing WP:NMUSIC or WP:Band Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 1 March 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 Power Pro Kun Pocket. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power Pro Kun Pocket 9[edit]

Power Pro Kun Pocket 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested WP:PROD. No explanation was providing for removing the prod, so I'll just copy-and-paste my original reasoning: Fails to meet WP:NGAMES. No indication of notability, and the only cited source is primary. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Power Pro Kun Pocket, which is barely notable on it's own. A full delete if there is nothing of value for this entry against the topic on the series. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Power Pro Kun PocketDeathlibrarian (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Power Pro Kun Pocket - not independently notable. PhilKnight (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - No reason given why this particular title in the series is notable in particular, but certainly its info could be of use to the main series article. It can always be spun out again if more sources that reliably establish its notability independent of the series can be found (it is possible they exist in Japanese, but less possible they will surface on this Wikipedia.) Red Phoenix ^talk 05:29, 2 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Skinner[edit]

Shane Skinner (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)

Entrepreneur. Does business things, but I don't see in-depth coverage about him specifically that passes WP:GNG. Coverage appears mostly to be about his business, which was found to be non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Record360. Article is also promotional in tone. Sandstein 15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Skinner is the owner of a professional sports team that will be televised nationally. This is notable. ColoradoHunter (talk) 00:36 16 February 2018 (UTC) — ColoradoHunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: ColoradoHunter only contributions to Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Record360 and this, likely a clear connection with the subject. If the user wants to argue his main contribution is to do with sports team ownership, the article needs to be reworked as such. Also, Tech.co is not a respected source so the top 10 list they published has no merit. Pilot333 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to comment on me, do so honestly. Don't create a false narrative to support your point. It's shameful to do so and lacks integrity, which should undermine any and all comments and contributions you make. I've made numerous entries and edits. The decision on Record360 is still very fresh and adequate time is needed to adjust the entry. Additionally, Pilot333 has no entries before today and he only comments where the tide of comments has been pretty well established. I have to wonder if he is a shill for a competitor. His comments should be taken with a grain of salt.ColoradoHunter (talk) 04:13 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Delete: The above mention of competition and paranoia makes me wonder about a WP:COI between the original creator and the subject. I don't own a competing major league sports team, believe me. Pilot333 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as mentioned, his company article failed WP:GNG. The rugby league is new so maybe WP:TOOSOON, but if the rugby team ownership is the main remaining source of Mr. Skinner's notability, then standard operating procedure is to just mention him in the team's article, at least until there's more coverage of him personally. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not appear notable except for his business interests, and notability is not inherited. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as mentioned above, owning a Rugby team is not something that justifies a wikipedia page! He should be mentioned on the team site. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not a lot of coverage about Skinner's own notability. TimTempleton has it right; if the team gets its own article and that is all that Skinner is notable for, he only needs mention there and not an article himself. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:27, 2 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Menghai tea factory[edit]

Menghai tea factory (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)

Independent reliable sources are nonexistent. The main source here is a blogspot post by Danny Samarkand. Taetea Group describes their factory on their website, and the Taetea Group seems to exist. It seems to be one of the state-run tea exporters, but how large it is or how significant it is is only a guess. So it looks like a lot of interesting stuff but for all I know it could be a complete hoax or a lot of hearsay. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independant RS for this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - google news returns some mentions, so not a hoax, but doesn't clear WP:GNG. PhilKnight (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not independently notable. WP:GNG is not met. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:33, 2 March 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) 21:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Sattar[edit]

Reza Sattar (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 Biography about the Bangladesh-Canadian author does not cite a single reliable source. Anyone can self publish a book on Amazon but does that mean Wikipedia should have articles on everyone who has done so? The article is not neutral, borderline advertising about a subject who does not appear to be notable. I failed to find any sources from a quick google news search. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No WP:RS on page and my searches find nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Toolbar gets hits on a Bangladeshi immigrant shopkeeper in Canada and one in New York with the same name - but nothing matching this bio. Appears to be a pure vanity or PROMO page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have an article on Wikipedia for promotional reasons just because they exist, but this is not referenced to any reliable source coverage about the subject for the purposes of passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete There is no significant independent coverage and nothing to show his book is notable.Sandals1 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.No RS for this person. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:51, 1 March 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. Withdrawn SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the worst[edit]

List of films considered the worst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An indiscriminate hard to define collection of hate against various films. The constant additions and reverts show that this is pretty much all opinion. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not indiscriminate: there are clear guidelines for inclusion - which are, unfortunately, usually ignored. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that 10 editors have now found this page indiscriminate enough to nominate it for deletion is a pretty clear signal that the topic is problematic. If a film is the worst - why is there a long list instead of 1 worst film? Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw and let the film buffs play with their collection of opinion. Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 22 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 Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Granic Allen[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

WP:NPOL - aspiring politician who has never held public office. Non-political achievements don't meet GNG. Should she win the PC leadership, or a seat, she'd qualify for an article - but just running for leadership (and her other work) doesn't pass the notability test. See WP:Articles for deletion/Rick Peterson (Canadian politician) for a similar situation. Madg2011 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based on the sheer number of news articles referenced on this individual's page, it seems to be clear that the newsworthiness and notability of this person is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Outback the koala (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are four articles referenced on the page. Two are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her leadership bid, and one is a lifestyle-section interview with her about her family (which has nothing to do with either her politics or activism). Only one of the four could maybe pass the bar as a useful reference. How is that a "sheer number [...] beyond a reasonable doubt"? Madg2011 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought as a leading figure in Ontario as a pro-life organizer and educational reform activist she would had her own article before the leadership for leader of the official opposition. This I would think puts things over the top in my mind even further. Your point on sources on this page is well taken, I see only four at this time as some were removed; I will do some research and flesh out this article with more sourcing and sourced material, which shouldn't be hard for such a prominent figure in the current political landscape. Long story short, here's a person who meet eligibility via notability. Outback the koala (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every organizer or activist for a political cause doesn't get an automatic notability freebie either. Outside of the leadership campaign itself, I find no evidence of any significant coverage about her that would have gotten her over WP:GNG for her activism — I get a few glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, but no sources that would have been enough to get her an article for being a pro-life organizer or education reform activist per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Becoming a prominent figure in Canadian politics, could end up as premier of Ontario. -- Evans1982 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NPOL, and the discussion in the Peterson AfD, unelected politicians have to pass GNG to warrant their own articles. Granic Allen doesn't. Madg2011 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not about what may happen... it is about what has happened. The mere fact that she could be the next premier (which requires her to win the leadership election and the general election) does not automatically make the leader of a small single-issue activist group notable. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she does end up as leader of the party and/or Premier of Ontario — I strongly doubt that she'll achieve either of those things, but after Trump I've learned to never say never anymore — then she'll obviously get an article when that happens. But we don't keep an article just because of what might happen in the future, we keep or delete it based on what's already true as of today and then permit recreation in the future if and when things change. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 10:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 10:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If she fails in the leadership election, then I will say delete. But for now she is a noteworthy candidate. // sikander { talk } 11:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep articles just because the subject might accomplish something in the future that they have not already accomplished as of today. If she wasn't already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons before becoming a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for an article unless and until she wins the leadership. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. Per WP:NPOL she is not currently a notable politician, and I have yet to see WP:SIGCOV that could keep under GNG. If she wins the leadership election (far from a sure deal) then she would likely be parachuted into a safe PC riding and then would be an elected MPP that meets NPOL. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect or draftify Once someone is notable they are notable forever; the keep arguments here imply a WP:TOOSOON SportingFlyer (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. The leadership election is notable, even if the candidates may not be. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in political party leadership races — if they didn't already qualify for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before being a leadership candidate, such as actually having held a notable political office already, then they have to win the leadership, not just run for it, to clear the notability bar. The coverage she's received in this context just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of sustained encyclopedic interest who would pass the ten-year test. If she wins the leadership, then she'll be notable enough for her own article — but merely being a candidate in the leadership race is not in and of itself enough to earn her anything more than having her name present in the article on the race itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Agree with above points. No notability established. Alaney2k (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018- Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage of her campaign is rather routine. Also, there is a huge difference between notable now and may become notable. We are only concerned with current notability. If and when she becomes premier of Ontario (I'm not that familiar with Canadian government, is that like a governor or something?) then she may qualify for an article, but certainly not now.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now. WP:Too soon applies here. VivaSlava (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of arguments against are based on her political career. Given the significant coverage (many articles) in mainstream newspapers like the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, etc., I should think GNG is obvious. Agricola44 (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What significant coverage, though? Aside from the routine coverage of her running for the PC leadership the only other source that is more than a passing mention of her as a spokesperson was the NatPo article that interviewed her about having children in her 20s instead of waiting. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there many articles about her in publications? Yes. Are these publications mainstream? Yes. Is that enough for GNG? Yes. I don't think it's up to you to demean the case with judgments like "routine coverage". She has been noted. A lot. That makes her notable. Not much more to discuss. Agricola44 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't accept candidates for political office as notable for the fact of being candidates per se. Unless and until she wins the leadership, she has to be shown as having already been notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason outside of the leadership campaign itself — until that can be shown, the campaign coverage itself just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN - She is an activist who has never held public office. If she wins the leadership or a seat in the 2018 election, then she can qualify for a page. Until then, she should not have one. RoyalObserver (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She's not notable... yet. She's just a candidate and may not become notable. Getting mentioned in news articles for being a candidate does not confer notability. If she wins, or otherwise becomes notable, the article can be added later. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable and not the leader. If she becomes the leader and/or an MPP, then she may be notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepUntil March 8th then decide. She is running for an important political position in a heated race, if she doesn't make the cut at the conclusion of voting on that date then decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:7D20:303:D88D:5515:2002:AC59 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:7D20:303:D88D:5515:2002:AC59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not the way it works. We're deciding on notability now, we're not waiting until future notability can be determined.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted several times above, that's not how it works. We do not keep Wikipedia articles pending the possible future achievement of something that would pass a notability criterion — we keep or delete based on what's already true today, and then permit recreation in the future if things change. If she wins the leadership, then she'll qualify to have an article once that happens — but she doesn't get to already have one today just for being a candidate who might win the leadership in the future. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changed to Merge) There are plenty of reliable secondary sources referencing her. Quick google search returns 15,600 items ranging from CBC, CTV, Global, Star and such -Truther2012 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can google my name and see news articles highlighting activist/advocacy. It doesn't make me significant enough for a wikipedia page. The fact is, she's an activist who protests/advocates on one issue. Never held significant office, nor really done anything significant until now. RoyalObserver (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep an article about every single person who can say that some media coverage of them exists — if that were enough in and of itself, we would have to keep an article about every fire and police chief in existence, every smalltown municipal councillor and school board trustee in existence, every high school athlete in existence, every radio personality in existence, my mother's neighbour who got into the papers for finding a pig in her front yard a few years ago, and on and so forth. Coverage has to do more than just reference her — it has to be about her accomplishing something that passes a Wikipedia inclusion standard, and makes her more than just a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most nonsensical argument I have ever read on Wikipedia to date! If I found a pig in my yard, you know the first thing I would do, and you know I would, is rush to make myself a Wikipedia page. And the pig incident would make up the bulk(at least three paragraphs). It's basic logic! I would very much consider that a notable and newsworthy event in my life, including a picture in the Christmas cards. Maybe I'd name him Reg, in honour of the Star Trek character. Outback the koala (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously this is not a fair comparison, she is vying for leader of the official opposition of Canada's largest province, not a high school athlete. Outback the koala (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion standard for politicians is holding office, not running for it. We don't exempt an aspiring candidate from that standard just because "media coverage exists", because media coverage always exists for all candidates in all political races. But unless they either (a) win, or (b) were already notable enough for an article for other reasons anyway, that coverage just makes them a WP:BLP1E. Which is why the pig lady is not an unfair comparison: the basis for Wikipedia having an article about her would be "but media coverage of her exists", and the reasoning being used to argue that Granic should be exempted from having to pass NPOL by winning the leadership first is "but media coverage of her exists". There are lots of people for whom some kind of media coverage does exist, but a reason why they would qualify to keep an encyclopedia article on the basis of that coverage does not — and being an as yet non-winning candidate for political office, who has no preexisting notability for any other reason, is one of those cases. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Leary ran one time for leadership of the federal Conservative party and like this woman had preexisting notability from before the race. I fail to see the distinction your making because media does not extensively cover a subject that is not notable, at least not normally since they are businesses looking to make money. BPL1E really does not apply to this situation because of preexisting notability; I believe the fact that this woman meets Two guidelines for inclusion, not just one, should be taken into consideration in combination, otherwise we are taking a very flat view of articles throughout the project. Many blp pages are dynamic, as are people irl, we see this often on minor actors and actresses pages during deletion discussions, where a verity of factors come into play, and rightly so in my opinion. There is so much content, it's too much to get through, but what is like to see is more effort to help improve this page, rather than knee jerk reaction to deleting a notable page. It does NOT in any way improve the encyclopedia to delete notable content that simply needs a little more work. It's better to build than destroy. Outback the koala (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Leary was already the subject of substantive and ongoing coverage in his TV career prior to running for the leadership — he does not have an article because he ran for Conservative leader and lost, but rather he already had an article for his TV career before he ever ran for leader of anything. It's not even a question of having to retroactively evaluate whether O'Leary would have qualified for an article before the leadership campaign or not — the article already existed ten years before he ever ran for the leadership of any political party at all. Nobody has been able to show any evidence that this woman was already receiving any substantive coverage for her activism work prior to running for the leadership, however. That's the difference: O'Leary already had preexisting notability for other things before running for the leadership, while Granic Allen has not been properly sourced as being able to claim the same. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with counter arguments presented above. However, after more research I came across WP:POLOUTCOMES, which is fully applicable in this case. I would consider Merge to PC Leadership page to be a more appropriate solution - Truther2012 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until end of race, and at the least, *redirect to candidate page, somewhat because of WP:POTENTIAL, but also because during the race, all of Ontario and probably thousands of other Canadians and Americans are looking to learn about who is at minimum, 25% likely to be Ontario's (yes, Canada's busiest province) next Premier. Granic Allen meets WP:POLITICIAN requirement number 2 - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I'd say she's received significant coverage in only 2 or 3 weeks that she's been running. Ultimately, if her article is going to paint an incorrect picture of who she is, emitting various affiliations and works, such as her work at the UN which is presently unmentioned: *delete; however, if google search stats could talk right now for Ontario politics, Granic Allen needs a page at least until March 10. 4truth4 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)— 4truth4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My responses:

• If people want to learn about her, they can Google her or look on other sites. Public interest can be part of a Keep argument, but it doesn't overrule policy.
• The WP:POLITICIAN clause that you cite requires the subject to be "written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Not the case for Granic Allen.
• Factual inaccuracy is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. The discussion here is asking whether she, as a person, passes WP notability standards, not how good the article is.
• Notability is permanent. "She is notable until March 10" isn't a good argument.

Madg2011 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4truth4: yet again, "keep for the duration of the race and then delete if she loses" is not a thing Wikipedia does. If a person was not already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, then she has to win the race, not just run in it, to get an article for being in the race. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS — our role is to keep articles about topics that people will still be looking for ten years from now, not to keep an article about every single person who happens to show up in the current news cycle for a single event, so a person who wasn't already notable enough for an article for some other reason before the leadership race does not become notable enough for an article unless and until she wins it. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They say that a week is a long time in politics. Running for the PC leadership has propelled her into the news and there are sufficient sources for an article. Also, she had lots of news coverage before as spokesperson for Parents As First Educators.[21] Even if she fades back to relative obscurity, people interested in the history of the party will want to know who she was. While I agree that being a candidate is not a guarantee of notability, this contest requires a $100,000 entry fee, which limits the number of entries, and she is participating in the debates and receiving on-going news coverage, unlike for example the 60 minor candidates who ran for mayor of Toronto. TFD (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current newsiness is not grounds for a Wikipedia article. If a person was not already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she has to win the race, not just be a candidate in it, to become notable enough. Every candidate in any election could always claim to have received enough coverage to get into Wikipedia because of the candidacy itself, because every candidate always gets at least as much as has been shown here, but if we accepted every candidate as notable just because of the campaign coverage itself, then we're no longer an encyclopedia but a worthless directory of non-neutral campaign brochures. The coverage that a candidate receives for being a candidate itself just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has permanently passed a Wikipedia notability standard on that basis, and the size of the entry fee that a person paid to enter the race is not a notability criterion either. If she wins the leadership, she'll get an article, but just being a candidate for the leadership does not qualify her for an article in and of itself — if she wouldn't have already qualified for one before she was a candidate, then she has to win the race to become eligible for an article. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out there is a difference between being registered as a candidate and achieving recognition as a candidate. She is involved in the televised debates as one of only four candidates. I take your point that it is her campaign that is notable, not Allen herself, in which case we could rename the article "PC Leadership campaign of Tanya Granic Allen," and then move it back in two weeks when she becomes a candidate for nomination as MPP. The reason for BLP notablity guidelines is that we should not have articles about people for whom insufficient sources are available to write a fair article. That's not the case here. Incidentally, the Sarah Thomson article began the same way.[22] She was a non-notable person who became notable because the media decided to raise her profile. I don't know why they did that, but it is secondary sources that determine notability, not Wikipedia editors.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomson (politician). Same arguments and ended with no consensus. Maybe she's just famous for being famous. Think we should try another AfD?

TFD (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in a race that has debates at all will, by definition, be included in those debates. It's not proof that she's recognized as "special" — it's automatically part and parcel of being a candidate at all. And no, the candidates don't get "leadership campaign of [Candidate]" articles as spinoffs from the overall article about the leadership race in general, either — and if she doesn't win the leadership, she also doesn't get an article for being a candidate for nomination as an MPP either. If she doesn't win the leadership race, then she goes right back to having to win election as an MPP, not just being a candidate in the provincial election, to clear the inclusion bar.
And no, the reason Sarah Thomson got to keep an article wasn't "campaign coverage" — the argument was that the preexisting coverage of her in the context of being a magazine publisher was enough to deem her notable for that, not that any part of the campaign coverage made her notable because candidate per se. I still didn't agree that there was enough preexisting coverage of her in the Women's Post context, but it was Women's Post that carried the day in her notability debate, not "candidate for mayor". Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this discussion be relisted to allow more engagement from editors not directly related to the subject. Outback the koala (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all candidates are invited to debates, only notable candidates are. During the Toronto mayoral election, there are routinely dozens of candidates who are never invited. You are perhaps confusing this with non-televised all candidates debates for city councillors.

I'm not confusing anything with anything. In a party leadership race, all of the candidates are invited to participate in the debates. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson's notability as an editor was on a par with Granic Allen's notability as president of Parents As First Educators. Incidentally, are you saying that Sarah Thomson is more notable as a publisher than as a former candidate for mayor? And if Allen isn't notable, why are the media covering her? TFD (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson had media coverage in her role with the Women's Post. Granic did not have media coverage in any noteworthy context outside of the leadership race itself, or at least none has been shown and I can't find any either. No notability claim that any person can make ever confers an automatic "notable just because she did that" freebie that exempts her from having to show that she was getting enough media coverage to pass GNG for that thing. No evidence has been shown here that her PAFE work would have gotten her an article prior to somebody erroneously thinking that candidates get articles just for being candidates. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search up to the date the Thomson article was created shows that she had no coverage for her role as editor, only for being a candidate.[23] Which probably explains why there was no article about her before. Notability is not about what we consider to be important, but what reliable sources decide to pay attention to. The existence of this article does not unduly elevate Granic Allen's profile or invade her privacy. TFD (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google News is not a reliable gauge of how much coverage a person was or wasn't getting eight to ten years ago — it's only solid for locating current coverage, not decade-old coverage. It will still find some decade-old coverage, but it misses a lot more of that than it catches. To definitively determine whether a person was getting enough coverage a decade ago to qualify for an article or not, you need to search archival databases of news coverage, not Google. And at any rate, you can't just keep scouring Wikipedia looking for evidence that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — first it was Kevin O'Leary, then as soon as I clarified why that comparison doesn't wash it was suddenly Sarah Thomson instead — but the existence of any other article, regardless of how similar it may seem on the surface, does not create exemptions from Wikipedia's inclusion standards for anybody else. If you really think Thomson's not notable for anything but running for mayor and losing, then you're welcome to try nominating her for deletion again on the grounds that the first discussion evaluated her notability incorrectly — but the existence of that article is irrelevant to whether this one can exist or not, because they're not equivalent situations. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Minor figure but meets notability requirements. Nixon Now (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, she does not. A candidate for office who was not already notable enough for an article before becoming a candidate does not clear notability standards on the candidacy coverage itself, because the campaign coverage itself just makes her a wP:BLP1E. Such a candidate has to win the job she's campaigning for before she "meets notability requirements". Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 1 March 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) KagunduTalk To Me 06:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobiles considered the worst[edit]

List of automobiles considered the worst (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 coatrack collection of hate against various cars. All of this repeats opinion - which is what sells papers that include car reviews. Darn near any car has had some negative press. It is an indiscriminate collection of quotes with no objective criteria for inclusion. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per established principal. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but the comparable List of films considered the worst has been previously nominated, discussed, and kept nine times, which pretty comprehensively establishes this as an encyclopedic topic. As for the nomination rationale, I see no hate in the article (sometimes just the opposite, e.g. "the Trabant was regarded with derisive affection"), and as an oft-published subject in respectable news and broadcasting media there are plenty of reliable refs to support content. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I note the nominator also moved List of music considered the worst to List of music considered notable for negative reception with the rationale "Much more accurate". I agree entirely with that and suggest that if this article is kept, a similar move is made. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I believe it already was. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk

• Keep as per established principal (as per above) and there is a precedent with the worst films page. There are lots of interest in the worst cars... there are a number of books published on the topic, which would point to its notability, including "World's Worst Cars" "Automotive Atrocities! The Cars We Love to Hate" Eric Peters, "Lemons: The World's Worst Cars: Timothy Jacobs", "The Worst Cars Ever Sold", by Giles Chapman, not to mention countless articles web pages on the topic, and lists of worst cars including Time Magazine's "50 Worst Cars of All Time". Articles is well referenced, with lots of RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable subject that has been covered extensively in the media throughout the years. I believe it is of enough interest to belong in an encyclopedia. In fact, I think this subject has received more mainstream media coverage than some of the other "worst ever" articles covered here such as video games and music,. The article does need work, I have been trying to work on it and improve it when I have time, but I think the basics of it are good. The selection of cars is good, each one is backed up with multiple sources, doesn't contain original research and is generally following the criteria or listing cars that were so bad they brought consequence to the manufacturer and became famous specifically for their defects, and each entry does a good job explaining it. It doesn't have entries such as listing the NS Chrysler minivans just because they have lots of problems with transmission failure and the strut towers rusting out. Needs help but is worthy of being here. Reattacollector (talk) 03:46, 2 March 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! 08:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Diana[edit]

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

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

Notability? PabloMartinez (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a google search brings up a number of news articles; not sure how to apply the artist criteria here since she's primarily local to Uganda, but there are many news stories about her in local Ugandan press, including articles about her graduation party. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]