< 3 February	5 February >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtland Sykes[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for a notable person / politician FideKoeln (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges

Has never held a political office and is not the nominee of his party

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 23:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 23:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2018#Republican primary Right now nothing besides a Facebook thing to define their Senate campaign; if they win the primary they'll probably get an article, but until then there's no 'there' here. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for nomination are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet nonwinning candidates in future election primaries — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable for some other reason besides his candidacy (e.g. having already held another notable political office), then he has to win the general election, not just run as a primary or even general election candidate, to be considered a notable politician per WP:NPOL. And having some campaign-related coverage does not automatically equal a WP:GNG pass, either, because every candidate in any election can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the Senate seat, but nothing here, neither the substance nor the sourcing, qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates not notable per WP:POLOUTCOMES - fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Britain[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:N. Subject appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Unable to find evidence of in depth coverage by multiple independent reliable secondary sources called for in our guidelines. Article also fails WP:V given only a single cited source which was (it's currently a dead link) presumably the org's home page. I will note that it doesn't help that the org's name is currently a widely used phrase or expression in the ongoing Brexit debate which makes it challenging to get search results specific to this particular organization. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This company seems to be active. One of its directors has his own wiki page, but the other only shows up in company searches. Otherwise, searches show nothing to indicate notability.-Shtove (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any references to Global Britain which refer to this company. There are, however, a huge number to the term in general so it is possible something got lost in the noise. That said - Fails GNG, fails NORG. Jbh ^Talk 16:17, 11 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyblack Church[edit]

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

Apparently its only notability is it's old. I don't think all old churches pass WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it uses the church's website as a source, that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Nothing indicates that this is a historic site, a building's age doesn't give it auto-notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the nom do WP:BEFORE? See here for example. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete if you leave off the quotes you get lots of false hits, but I'm not finding any discussion of the church beyond its use as a meeting place. Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:INDEPENDENT sources and fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only official website and Wiki-mirror sites has mentioned this church. Excelse (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- A very typcial local church. It is not even all that old for a British church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Website sophistication rate[edit]

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

Relatively unknown term. Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- When I search for this I get like 10 hits, it sounds like a term someone just made up.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete with ice. I cannot find much to prove existence, I even tried GScholar. Do we think a G3 blatant hoax will stick?L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete I did find something talking about a "sophistication rate" with respect to websites, but the term meant something entirely different and it wasn't clear that anyone else used the term. Mangoe (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter C. Quintard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Quintard was mayor of South Norwalk, at a time when the population seems to have been under 20,000. In the last discussion, only the size of the city was discussed. However, this just establishes we need good and adequate sources to show notability. So lets look at what we have. Source number 1 is the Political Graveyard listing of the mayors of South Norwalk. Here [1] is the same website's listing for Quintard. This is not generally considered a reliable source, especially to show that someone was notabel. Source #2 is a listing of the mayor's of Norwalk, which I can't access, but it does not seem to be more than just a directory listing. Sources 3 and 5 are from FamilySearch, both primary documents, one is Quintard on the 1880 census, and we are not prepared to create articles on everyone who shows up in the 1880 census, the other is the death register for Quintard, we are also not prepared to create articles on everyone who died in Connecticut. The one remaining source is an entry in the index to a journal of Quintard's brother-in-law from a tripod.com hosted site. Even if this was an entry in an index to a journal published by a university press, being mentioned in the notes of a journal is not a default sign of notability, not even having your journal or diary published by a university press gaurantees notability. Tripod.com is however user generated content, so this is even less of a sign of notability. So what we have here is a city that in no way gaurantees default notability for mayors, and all sources are either primary, non-reliable, or directory listings. We totally lack the level of sourcing needed to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- If all that can be written about this guy is two sentences, he's not notable enough. He clearly fails WP:POLITCIAN and WP:GNG. Also, the previous AFD was improperly closed, it should have been taken to DRV. The result should have been either another relisting or no consensus, not Keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Not even a biography. Just a few sentences that this guy existed. Acnetj (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously a signifanct figure in the history of Norwalk. He was its 2nd mayor and served a 2nd term after the firdt mayor returned to office in between. He was also senior partner in a major carriage firm. Also had a role in the history of Ridgefield and the founding of the parish and episcopal church in Norwalk. Numerous sources on Google Books. I expanded the article some and added a few of the book sources. Whether the subject should be merged to an article on the city's mayors is another question, but deletion would be improper. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLOUTCOMES and GNG; sourced to incidental references and user-generated genealogy websites Chetsford (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere at all could always claim, by definition, to be significant to the history of that place. So we don't keep an article about a mayor just because somebody asserts that he was significant to the history of his own town or city; we keep it if he can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG. But the sources here aren't demonstrating that — all of the ones that were already present before yesterday are complete trash, and the ones FloridaArmy added yesterday all just namecheck his existence in lists or tables of election results, and are in no way substantively about him. A mayor does not get to keep an article just because we can technically verify the basic fact that he served as mayor: he needs to be the subject of coverage in his own right, which none of the sources here are showing that he has been. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dre Robinson[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable musician nor garnered any wide spread attention in reliable sources to verify this BLP. Mattg82 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, then retarget to Islamic views on evolution. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution in Qur'an[edit]

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

De-prodded. WP:ESSAY and WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to Islamic views on evolution. This page is at least partially copied from the existing page without attribution so deleting it might deals with copy-violation/misattribution in the page history. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10 as a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not provide improved information on the existing topic. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, no need to keep previous history. as it is a likely search term for the topic. I am taking off the speedy delete template as this would make a good redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamic views on evolution as this is obviously a WP:CONTENTFORK. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 14:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with others. Should be redirected to Islamic views on evolution. M A A Z T A L K 11:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Entire content was: "Apollo's Swing is a Prototype Screamin' Swing built by S&S Worldwide at Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin. It opened in 2003." Sandstein 20:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo’s Swing[edit]

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

I proposed this for deletion as not notable and not referenced, but the article creator declined the PROD. This is an article on a theme park ride, there is no indication of notability and no links apart from to the theme park website. Tacyarg (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An article for this type of ride already exists — Screamin' Swing. Other than having been the first, there is nothing else notable about this particular installation. We don't need wiki articles for each installation. Also support deletion of Screamin Swing (Dorney Park) and Screamin Swing (Knott's Berry Farm (sic). Also note this editor has a history of creating stub articles just for the sake of creating articles.—JlACEer (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no clue as to how to delsort this. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to locate reliable sources to support notability, except for YouTube videos and trivial mentions such as [2]. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Screamin' Swing. Significant in the development of this type of ride. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; significant RS coverage not found. There's nothing worth merging here as the article consists of 1 sentence & lists no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Chavez Shooting[edit]

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

This incident only achieved local coverage for a brief period. No officers were fired or indicted after it happened. Chavez himself did not fit the criteria for notability. This article is simply reporting local news and does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. Rogermx (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure – While I do find this to be an appropriate article for a wiki, it could be expanded from what it is now. JE98 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 15:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:NOTNEWS, we need some type of lasting effect.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wahida Valiante[edit]

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

Nothing significant in coverage. Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. This is referenced entirely to primary sources that cannot build a WP:GNG case, with the exception of just one piece of reliable source coverage which just makes her a WP:BLP1E. We do not keep an article about everybody whose existence can be verified by having appeared in a newspaper once — to deem her notable, we would require evidence of substantive and sustained coverage in the context of more than just apologizing for a single controversial comment. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Cunningham Scharper[edit]

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

It's fairly clear from the edit history that this article was created—possibly by the subject—to publicise a novel, and an obscure literary genre. The same SPA responsible for this article also created one for what I assume is her husband, since deleted (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Bede Scharper). The subject doesn't meet the notability criteria for academics (WP:NACADEMIC), doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, and I'm fairly sure the novel fails WP:BKCRIT, which is a fairly low bar. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC) L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:00, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much use of not recognized neologisms, and the fact that one source listed is a blog suggests a general low quality of sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when are bad writing and one weak source among many stronger ones valid reasons for deletion? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Awkward or unclear writing can be cleaned up, and the article has enough stronger sources added that the blog can simply be removed without actually changing anything. So those aren't deletion reasons in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her work has been reviewed in RS passes CREATIVE. I added sources to the article. I think that all the ecoGothic stuff could be cut out, too, but I'm not 100% if I should. I would like to point out that it's possible Johnpacklambert missed the sources I just added which include Toronto Star, Hollins Critic and Globe and Mail. I just added those, so John Pack Lambert may want to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- She works in Toronto, so Toronto is a local paper and in no way a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The localness or non-localness of the sources is not a criterion that applies the same way in every context. Yes, there are some classes of topic where the sourcing would need to expand beyond the purely local, such as smalltown mayors and restaurants and non-winning candidates for political office and unsigned bands that are shooting for NMUSIC #1 because they don't pass any of NMUSIC's other criteria at all — but there are plenty of other classes of topic where we simply don't care how local or non-local the sourcing is, such as big city mayors and provincial, state or federal legislators. The geographic range of the sourcing only comes into play if the notability claim is "doesn't actually pass any SNG but still passes WP:GNG anyway just because some media coverage of her exists" — it's not relevant if the notability claim is "actually passes an SNG for a specific accomplishment that counts as a valid notability claim", such as actual critical attention being paid to a writer. The Toronto Star actually doesn't go out of its way to overhype minor writers just because they happen to live in Toronto — I'd expect that from Now and historically Eye Weekly/The Grid, certainly, but the Star's editorial standards for book reviews aren't notably different from those of The Globe and Mail, a national newspaper which is also cited here. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Toronto Star is "local" isn't an issue—it's whether a smattering of reviews in Canadian newspapers makes someone an "important literary figure", and one who is "widely cited by peers or successors". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The operand in NAUTHOR is OR, not AND. A writer can get a Wikipedia article by being a "important literary figure" or "widely cited by peers or successors" or by winning or being nominated for a major literary award or by having significant and non-trivial critical attention. They need pass only one of those four criteria — even better if they pass more than one simultaneously, sure, but passing just one is enough. We have lots of articles about writers who do have enough reliable source coverage to be considered notable, but would still be considered minor writers on the "importance" scale when compared to the likes of Herman Melville or John Updike or William Shakespeare or Margaret Atwood — but the test is notability, not fame, and notability is entirely a question of whether reliable source coverage is there or not. And here, it is. And at any rate, "cited by peers or successors" is a criterion that only works for non-fiction writers — it's impossible for a novelist to pass it, because novels don't "cite" or "succede" other novels, so if that were a condition that every writer had to pass, we'd be able to keep very few articles about novelists or poets at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I understand NAUTHOR, and the subject of the article meets neither of those clauses. They are neither an "important literary figure", nor "widely cited by peers or successors". They have also not received significant critical attention. You are correct that relatively minor authors can meet the notability guidelines (obviously), but it would take a very liberal treatment of the guidelines to interpret three reviews in Canadian newspapers as "significant coverage". Edit: The final point is just incorrect—of course works are cited in literary criticism. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, obviously you don't understand NAUTHOR, if you think that the two notability clauses you singled out are the only two ways a writer can be considered notable and that there are no other ways for a writer to clear the bar at all.

Secondly, one of those three Canadian newspapers is The Globe and Mail, which is in and of itself a source that can vault a person above the bar — even a person who would ordinarily fail a notability standard, such as a smalltown mayor, who got coverage in The Globe and Mail could be considered more notable than the norm for their class of topic, and therefore potentially keepable, specifically because there was coverage in The Globe and Mail. The G&M represents nationalized coverage in and of itself, because it's a national newspaper of record — it's a source that can be used in and of itself as evidence that a person, place or thing, even within an otherwise non-notable class of topic, is credibly more notable than the norm because coverage exists in that publication.

Thirdly, it does not require "a very liberal treatment of the guidelines" to interpret three reviews in Canadian newspapers as significant critical attention — how many more critical reviews do you think it would it take to be enough critical reviews? — and at any rate, we don't have just three critical reviews from Canadian newspapers anyway, as the sources Megalibrarygirl added also include a Canadian literary journal, and two newspapers and a literary journal from the United States, and even among the three Canadian newspapers one of them — The Globe and Mail at that, so reread point the second if that hasn't sunk in yet — is citing two separate reviews of two books on two separate occasions.

And finally, critical attention is a separate criterion from, and not covered by "cited by peers or successors" — critical reviews are not "citing", a thing that happens only in non-fiction work, but reviewing. So no, the final point you responded to was not "incorrect" — you're conflating a correct statement about one notability criterion with a separate notability test that it's not applicable to. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I usually have a policy of not replying to rude responses, but I'll respond here. If you think three reviews in wide-circulation newspapers represents "significant" critical attention, then we are clearly just applying different standards. You do this a lot more than I do, so you are probably applying the correct standard—that is, the one generally applied elsewhere. I will say, however, that your claim that being mentioned in a newspaper of record, even in the context of a book review, can "vault" an otherwise non-notable figure over the WP:GNG bar, does not feature in the guidelines, which require "significant coverage". If, in your opinion, mention in a newspaper of record meets "significant coverage", that's fine, but that's just your interpretation of the guideline.

As for the final point, you are incorrect that "citing" is "a thing that happens only in non-fiction work". In the English language, "cite" does not just refer to formal citation in published work. To cite is to quote or mention something—for example: "She cites a favourite poem by George Herbert". Novelists and poets can cite their influences, for example. It is true that "novels don't "cite" ... other novels", but the "peers" and "successors" of novelists, etc, do cite one another. Swift and Pope, for instance, were peers of Samuel Johnson, and they all regularly cited one another. Thomas Carlyle was a successor of Johnson's, and cited him. By the way, novels do ""succede" other novels". It can also refer to formal citation in scholarship, but understood in this sense, critical reviews definitely do cite things, and your attempt to draw an opposition between "reviewing" and "citing" is bizarre.

I've said all I want to say, so don't expect me to reply further. I am also conscious of WP:BLUDGEON. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing even slightly "rude" about my response, which was quite polite and measured — if you perceived it as rude, that says infinitely more about your sensitivity settings than it does about my tone. And I didn't say being "mentioned" in the Globe and Mail would be a notability boost, either — I said being covered in the Globe and Mail, in a substantive way that goes beyond merely being mentioned, would be a notability boost. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your changes, but I'm afraid she still doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple published reviews of multiple books in major national newspapers (and Publishers Weekly) is a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. And while the Star might plausibly be discounted as too local, WP:BKCRIT says nothing about locality, and that's not true of the Globe and Mail (it's a national paper regardless of where its head office is) nor of the other papers from nowhere near Toronto. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article, and "based on 2015 statistics", the Toronto Star "is Canada's highest-circulation newspaper on overall weekly circulation". It's a serious paper.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The only WP:AUTHOR criteria this article plausibly meets is the following:

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

Besides some small/independent magazines/blogs, Scharper has had one book reviewed in the Toronto Star and Publishers Weekly, and one in the Globe and Mail. Can you confirm that, in your view, this makes her "an important [literary] figure", and one that is "widely cited by peers or successors". Even if you can do that, I certainly wouldn't characterise this as a "clear pass". L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The clauses of WP:AUTHOR I had in mind were 3, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", and 4(c), "The person's works have won significant critical attention". I think that the first book having reviews in the Star and Globe and Mail, and the second in the Globe and Mail, Winnipeg Free Press, Philadelphia Inquirer, Publishers Weekly, and at least one academic journal certainly counts for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR, per Megalibrarygirl and David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~It objectively doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, but I'm giving up here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether the Toronto Star is too "local" to help establish notability for a writer (which I don't agree that it is, but that's not the point), there are numerous other valid reliable sources here now for which that question doesn't even exist to be up for debate in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be well sourced with significant coverage of the author and her work. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR as shown by the additional reliable sources added to the article since its nomination Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 11 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. Sandstein 19:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Ellis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable author. Fails WP:GNG & WP:AUTHOR. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 12:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a total failure to have adequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced and blatant PROMO...TNT applies. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge (UK Parliament constituency) election results[edit]

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

This page simply replicates the data on the page for the Cambridge (UK Parliament constituency). As such it is utterly redundant, and if the same approach were taken for the thousands of other UK constituency pages would result in tons of extra pages and risk for error and data conflict MapReader (talk) 12:41, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does actually contain results that aren't in the constituency article – i.e. those before 1874. I'd recommend copying these into the constituency article and then deleting. Number 5 7 12:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree that as long as any results that are missing from Cambridge (UK Parliament constituency) are copied over to that article then this page should go - there is no need for both constituency and results pages. Dunarc (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragon breeds (Temeraire)[edit]

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

Seems to be entirely WP:OR and makes no indication of any real world relevance. While suitable for a fan Wiki about the series, this is not suitable content for Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talk • contribs) 11:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yixin (software)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG Could not find any references in independent sources. Hagennos (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Jones (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contest dePROD: Sir Sputnik nominated PROD. It said: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Please note that the previous AfD was about a different footballer with the same name. HitroMilanese dePRODed. Although I am not sure whether this article passes WP:GNG or not, the player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Salt Recreated article of a youth player that fails WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: But Sir Sputnik said it is a different footballer, are you sure to be salt? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: heh, clearly I am not always reading things correctly, I might have been half asleep when I had a look earlier also! Govvy (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: So you mean to userfy to your userspace? I am happy if you are willing to do so. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhhhhkohhhhh: Umm, isn't there a more dominent Liverpool supporter who edits wiki for it? I didn't say I would take it!! Or simply delete and recreate if he makes a debut! Govvy (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He will play professionally at some point in the near future in my opinion but until then it is a delete. Szzuk (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The reason behind my deProding was not NFOOTY, it's WP:GNG and PRODs are meant for uncontroversial deletions. So in order to demonstrate the fact that the subject is failing on GNG, please confute the sources that I am going to present here. I guess merely stating that the subject fails on GNG is not going to suffice the purpose of this discussion. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including one from a major sports magazine, Sports Illustrated. Here is the link to Sports Illustrated article. Apart from that this, this and this are from Liverpool Echo. Liverpool FC's official website has published an article on the subject here. A person who does not meet these additional criteria such as WP:NFOOTY, may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Hitro talk 17:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want him to pass GNG then you need to find refs unrelated to football. Szzuk (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point out the guideline/policy that concurs with what you are saying. Or read the first three paragraphs of Wikipedia:Notability (sports), to know why I am saying what I said. Hitro talk 18:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any junior footballer fail NFOOTY and remain on WP, they come up regularly and they are always deleted, it is pretty much set in stone that footballers have to play professionally at least once, even a substitutes appearance for 1 second is enough - but they must play. FWIW I'm a fan of LFC, I don't think he will ever make the first team but he will certainly play football professionally. If he does make the first team, great, it will save us millions buying someone! He will get his page in a year or two. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented below with an example about similar case that is in my memory. I maintain PROD log and I have PRODed many such footballers over the years but I do often check for GNG. Exceptions do occur, and I guess this is one of them. FWIW I am a Milan fan, I am hurt since 2005 :p Hitro talk 22:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a Milan fan then you will know Steven Gerrard is a Liverpool legend - the local news will report on him eating a sandwich! He is also Jones direct coach and the press on Jones may in part (or wholly) be attributed to this. It's obvious Gerrard will be the Liverpool coach at some point - hopefully a good one. 2005 was a sensational night, Milan we're the better team and played the better football, football isn't always fair! Szzuk (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole point of football notability guidelines is that not all refs about football players actually show notability. With no refs unrelated to football, we have only routine coverage, and no showing of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's your personal understanding of GNG and NFOOTBALL. Nothing what you are stating is part of notability guidelines. In other words, you are prioritizing profession specific criteria over general notability guidelines, or you are plainly rejecting the existence of GNG . These things are for the guidelines talkpage discussions, not here. Unless, you point out previous outcomes where GNG was not given weight against NFOOTY, or you evidently demonstrate that subject fails on GNG, your rationals are invalid (or atleast not suitable for this AfD). Hitro talk 20:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Of the sources mentioned above:

Sports Illustrated - routine transfer talk, articles that basically report that x signed for y are not generally accepted as indicating notability as these sort of stores exist at many levels if you go local enough in your reporting.
Liverpool Echo 1 - very short article from local news source essentially refactoring a brief comment from the club into a short article.
Liverpool Echo 2 - focus of the article is on a completely different player. Trivial coverage of Jones.
Liverpool Echo 3 - Significant article on the player, but, as with the other 2 Echo articles, seems too local to really be significant coverage.
Liverpool FC - Primary Source not suitable to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a routine transfer talk. This article is not reporting only that x is signing y. The title of the article clearly explains that writeup is dedicated to the player,'Top Talent' Curtis Jones Set to Sign New Deal With Liverpool After Prospering Under Steven Gerrard. Top Talent should be taken into account, it's not x signing y. And it is seriously not a transfer talk (read the article). If you have link to another Sports Illustrated article about another such footballer, then please link it here.
There is already an internationally published article about the subject on Sports Illustrated. Talking about scope of the reach of the news agency, is either funny or WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IWANTTOHEARYOUSAYIT. I hope you have an idea that Sports Illustrated is an American company, and they spell football as futball or soccer, still they published this article. You are, in fact, discarding a reliable source, just to prove your point.
Yeah. I agree. Even though there is a separate segment about the subject.
Liverpool Echo is a reliable source. If it's significant coverage, then it's a significant coverage. Now what?? That's what is required to build up GNG.
Liverpool FC website is a Primary source??? Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved....... We are not talking about Liverpool FC here.....Your comment signifies that somehow we have to reject this source.Hitro talk 22:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Ray Leone, Failing on WP:NFOOTY, qualifying on WP:GNG. Hitro talk 22:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This was very recently at AfD, both WP:SKCRIT#1 and WP:SKCRIT#3 might apply here, and I'm invoking WP:SNOW for an early close. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption of Tide Pods[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eating Tide PODS

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

Article seems to be promoting consumption of tide pods, which is a very bad idea. At a minimum the article needs to be rewritten. Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:18, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. Does Suicide methods#Poison promote methods of poisoning? Should it be deleted? By your logic, this article cannot possibly exist. Ꞷ umbolo 14:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are specific reasons why the wiki review process deletes articles. The rationales above are a moral judgement and a need for copyediting. Wiki does not delete for either of these reasons. See WP:N for inclusion / exclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia covers all notable events and trends. Casting moral judgement on the consumption of Tide Pods is outside the scope of Wikipedia. We're supposed to cover the facts and what reliable sources say about Tide Pods. In this case, we can say that:

Eating Tide Pods is not good for one's health.
The makers of Tide Pods are strongly against eating Tide Pods, and encouragements to eat them.
The unanimous opinion of reliable sources is that actually eating Tide Pods is a bad idea, because it would harm the person eating them.

The article already states these three things, and I would claim this does not encourage the actual consumption of Tide Pods. While the article does not actively discourage the eating of Tide Pods, I don't think Wikipedia should take an editorial stance condemning the literal consumption of Tide Pods, as that is out of our scope as an encyclopedia. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per criteria 3. This article does not promote the consumption of Tide Pods as the nominator suggests. To the contrary, much of the article is about the lethal consequences of eating tide pods; there is even a little skull symbol and notice in the lede summary to highlight the dangers involved. Further, this article's last AfD was closed less than three weeks ago with the decision to keep, and nothing affecting the article's notability has changed since then. Spirit of Eagle (talk)
Keep; it's notable and has appeared in a huge number of sources. My main concern is the title and tone of the article; it isn't only tide pods, but also other detergent pods which are being consumed, and the article overall needs some Wikilove. I'll see about making it sound more encyclopedic this evening. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Morse[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient reliable secondary source coverage to support a biography; as such, fails WP:BIO inclusion guidelines. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searching on "Jennifer Roback Morse" and "Jennifer Anne Roback" reveals she is the author or co-author of 10 books, and in the 1980's had some economics publications, including one with Cal Thomas. There is also a more recent set of articles over a kerfuffle with the Southern Poverty Law Center's inclusion of the Ruth Institute on a list of hate groups, including some notice by John Stossel. I apologize I haven't time this week to read and analyze these sources, and there may not be enough written about her in reliable sources to meet GNG, but I'm hoping others will evaluate the sources available under her full names to determine her eligibility. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start on a list of sources:

National Review

Hoover Institute

Salvo

Huffington Post

Slate.com

Think Progress

The Gospel Coalition

Social Trends Instititue

The American Consrvative

The Advocate, 2014

The Advocate, 2013

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable sources available via web-search, I've added some. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added are of mixed quality. National Review is good. The "Truth-out" page is a commentary piece, and thus of less value than a news piece. The NC Register is about the Ruth Institute, using Roback as the spokesman, rather than about Roback herself, and would lend better to a Ruth Institute article... but that gets into the nagging question as to whether the Institute is actually anything more than just Roback. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that it is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had the same question... I'm reticent to make biographical articles coatracks for criticism of organizations that those people are affiliated with; should this article be renamed "Ruth Institute" and the name be a redirect? If most/all of the sources are about her affiliation with the Ruth Institute, the article should probably bbe at that title. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their website does list a "Circle of Experts", but it is unclear whether this is just people Ruth talks to, whether they represent them for speaking engagements, or what. Probably not even the latter, because the "Where we'll be" page makes it clear that this is where Roback will be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Does seem to be a prolific author, but the subjects she writes on are popular, meaning her book holdings (e.g. A Matter of Choice ~350) are somewhat average. But, when you add other things, like a dedicated piece in National Review, I think it probably just passes. Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although her brief academic career falls short of WP:PROF, enough has been written about her to meet WP:GNG. Since the name she is most know by is "Jennifer Roback Morse", I suggest the article be moved to that title, which is now a redirect. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:EDITATAFD, please note I have substantially edited the article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 11 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. Sandstein 19:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gigas (fantasy games)[edit]

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

Article is entirely WP:OR. There are no refs that prove that "Gigas" is anything but a cool sounding term. Most of the article is just a list of fancruft examples. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per both comments above. The article is pretty much entirely OR and WP:SYNTH, as the article creator seems to have just noticed that the word was used in multiple games, and cobbled the article together from that, with no sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although this isn't even FANCRUFT, really. Just a collection of games that use a similar term. And that's one helluva disambiguation term. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:12, 11 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) 15:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid9[edit]

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

Non-notable game that fails WP:GNG. The cited references seem to essentially be blogs rather than reliable sources with editors. There were some mentions on Siliconera and Hardcore Gamer, but they were not significant. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, the cited references do not appear to be notable/reliable. I checked on GameFAQs and Mobygames for better sources. GameFAQs has no reviews listed for the game, not even reader reviews, and Mobygames has no entry for the game at all. Lucid9 is a free-to-play fangame, so the lack of coverage is not too surprising, but it just doesn't seem to meet notability requirements.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first two review sites appear to have editors, but are minor at best. The third is probably not usable as an RS, but the article shades past just how scathing the review is. No significant RS coverage found elsewhere of 2014-2016+ development or 2016 release. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BLOGS. Unreliable sources have minor editors, rather, fans' reviews. This proves the article's section on its critical reception to be questionable, as this game isn't heard of in many gaming (JP visual novels for this case) websites. Not of any significance, also fails WP:NRV. Currently reviewing it whether it passes WP:NTEMP, however I don't see any sign it has gained recognizable notability in any given point in time. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Democratics: Why relist if you're immediately going to make a vote that might well be sufficient for an admin to close (and conversely, if you're going to make an assessment of the AFD -- which a relist is -- then !voting on it is questionable)? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 11:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howland and Baker islands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Baker and Howland Islands

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

This is weird one. Yes, Howard Island and Baker Island, both pass WP:NGEO alone and that's why we have an article on each of them. However, I don't understand why an article exists on the two of them together, it seems to be very redundant (everything is already covered in the separate articles). The only thing that really does link the islands together is an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). But there really isn't anything to say about the EEZ since the islands are uninhabited, there is very little economic activity going on there. The article was previously nominated for deletion and kept several years ago. That discussion didn't really get much participation and the nominator withdrew (probably due to his/her frustration with Unscintillating). A few weeks ago an ip address wanted to nominate for deletion again, but no one ever followed through on it. Rusf10 (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of the zone is enougt to justify them as a legal entity. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there's only a few sentences about the zone. And there's really nothing more to write about economic activity on two uninhabited islands. The rest of the article contains information covered elsewhere.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments expressed by DGG above. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this pair is a distinctive unit in US Minor Outlying Islands, and also referenced as this pair in various standards (not just the EEZ). It does not mean that each island may have their own geographical/natural/geological article, but politically and administratively they are in the same group (and probably as well in the same history and the same applicable international treaties, unless there are very specific events related to one of the islands only, such as ship wreckages, volcanic events, local aerodromes, local researches/explorations...). We can avoid the duplication of contents by sorting it correctly either for the geopolical group, or more locally to one od the islands. verdy_p (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Kolhapur bus accident. There is a clear majority for deleting this, a solid minority for keeping it, and one vote to wait and see. Moving to draft basically accomplishes all of those goals. The article is gone from mainspace, but it has not been deleted entirely from the encyclopedia, and can be restored to mainspace if future reporting in reliable sources arises to bring this out of merely being a short-term news item. bd2412 T 02:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kolhapur bus accident[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS MT Train^Discuss 06:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a singular incident without any real encyclopedic value. Hagennos (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability guidelines as per WP:SUSTAINED, widely covered by multiples sources and over 3,11,000 results on google. Xzinger (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This incident happened only on 26 Jan 2018. How can it have WP:SUSTAINED in less than 2 days? It is just a news item. Hagennos (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add, all RS coverage I can find is on 26th, and a few on 27th. Not a single report on it thereafter. MT Train^Discuss 16:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Hagennos. Of note Google pings have gone down to 244,000 with the majority of pings not related to the accident. Nightfury 08:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait 13 deaths a large number. I am not saying keep or delete, just wait some time and see if anything worth-aside from the sadly tragic loss of 13 lives-comes out of this to make it encyclopedia worthy or not.Antonio the regular fool looking at you Martin talalalala! 23:11, 1 February, 2018 (UTC)
Keep There is now international coverage also : Xinhua DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per NOTNEWS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google hits are inaccurate/untrustworthy. International coverage is same-day wire-service level. Fails NOTNEWS/SUSTAINED (lack of coverage after 27th) per above, and WP:TYTapplies: the event doesn't go anywhere at this point. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When studied, we see that editors have been attempting to track these disasters for nearly thirty years. Why put a stop to it now? This is a news item for a short time, then it becomes an item to study to try to minimize disasters in the future. That's a bit encyclopedic, isn't it? Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 09:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe it was the recently deleted Mamoon Manzil fire article that might perhaps be reinstated for the same reason? Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 10:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (ping Paine Ellsworth): A possibility would be for lesser events to be included at a series of "List of disasters in India in year" articles (which ideally would exist as head articles) and redirect from the navbox, such as is done with storms, etc. On the other hand, it's questionable as to what degree either this or the Mammoon Manzil fire, though tragic can be considered "disasters", since that implies some kind of significant/widespread/long-term/public impact/range/scale/importance/aftermath. A sample of prior years' articles in the navboxes suggests that almost all inclusions easily meet that fuzzy bar. For the MM fire, on the other hand, there were at least two deadlier fires in December in Mumbai alone [3][4]. Re this article, the not dissimilar 2017 Quintana Roo bus crash, with more passengers and at least 12 Western victims, doesn't appear to be a significant disaster either. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It is lamentable that in 30 days there was no clear consensus of whether to keep or delete the article. However, that seems to be where we are. A "no consensus" close means the status quo is kept, which means the article stays. Killiondude (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Key[edit]

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

I doubt the subject meets WP:CELEBRITY/WP:AUTHOR, because I don't see a single in-depth coverage cited in this bio. Some of the sources are non even RS. This may possibly also fails WP:GNG for the same reason. Saqib (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article subject has two Emmy Awards, plus with all the sources with signicant coverage WP:SIGCOV in the article easily passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — striking sockpuppet !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple Emmy nominations. Scanlan (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete unfortunately he doesn't meet the notability guidelines; his coverage is all fleeting and incidental (and not all of it is even in reliable sources) - we should have broader criteria for awards for creative professionals ... it's hard to make the case that a technical Emmy makes the cut BURLEY-XXII 07:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Actually burley-xxii this article subject does meet at least part 3 of the notability rules for creative professionals. I quote The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

In in 1993 and 1999 he won two Emmy Awards for his makeup artistry for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine which is a notable science fiction television series in the mainstream entertainment realm. The Emmys were both for Outstanding Individual Achievement in Makeup for a Series. Plus he received multiple nominations for the same award for at least four other episodes of the same series. So it is not a one episode deal. [5]^[1] [6] ^[2]^[3][7] ^[2]^[4]^[5]

So the section of part three The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. is satisfied.

Also this part of #3 work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series is satisfied because the awards and nominations for his body of work were for multiple episodes of the notable series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

There are multiple independent periodical articles or reviews about him in the mainstream press and media. For example: [8], [9],[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — striking sockpuppet !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Callan, K. (2003). The Working Actor's Guide to Los Angeles (2003). WORKING ACTOR'S GUIDE, L A. Aaron Blake Publishers, LLC. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-937609-20-0. Retrieved September 17, 2017.
^ ^a ^b "Nominees/Winners". Television Academy. December 1, 2016. Retrieved September 17, 2017.
^ "Michael Key". ModelMayhem. September 5, 2017. Retrieved September 20, 2017.
^ "Makeup artists put down roots in Clark County". The Columbian. June 17, 2016. Retrieved September 17, 2017.
^ Davies, Jeff (September 17, 2017). "The Emmys - awards for best makeup". themakeupgallery. Retrieved September 17, 2017.

DELETE per nom; references seem to be incidental mentions of Key Thalium (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I'm unsure how anyone could not consider the winner of two Emmy awards notable. --wooden superman 13:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Emmys were as part of a group win, not an individual award. It doesn't guarantee notability on its own. It's borderline whether GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Emmy nominations for his work establish notability in his field for his work. CookieMonster755 ✉ 00:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete as "his" Emmy nominations/awards are as part of groups of 6-8 others and there's not a lot of coverage about him personally. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has an impressive body of work in very notable films, won significant awards even if group awarded, and has rs coverage such as the Columbian Atlantic306 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has no one noticed that half the sources are bargain basement sources like this one? The rest just do not cut it.01:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.148.25 (talk)

I just removed four refs. In three of them, he was not mentioned at all. The fourth was Model Mayhem, the Facebook of the model world, which is self-published. What's left is the Emmy nomination and two articles on him. The coverage is very poor, I would encourage editors to look at the article again. It was puffed up previously.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska–San Miguel rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NRIVALRY. This match-up is being labelled as a rivalry only when they meet in the Finals. Yes, there are a few mentions of them being a rivalry, and they could really be said as a rivalry, but the coverage is not significant enough to be said as notable here in wiki. Fails WP:GNG. Stats in infobox are also unsourced. Could also be WP:OR. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. At this point, it looks like calling this a "rivalry" is WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BiteSquad[edit]

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

Lacking notability and depth of coverage. Media coverage primarily consists of routine corporate business (acquisitions, expansion of service areas) or PR/press-kits. Lack of sufficient independent editorial about the company. They may be notable in future, but I don't think they are yet. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in the article provides a claim to notability and my searches are finding only routine coverage and social media. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; significant RS coverage not found. In general, WP:TOOSOON & corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree, I can't find significant coverage to make it pass WP:NCORP. Sam Sailor 11:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 11:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olof Mörck[edit]

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

Nominating per a discussion in #wikipedia-en-help on IRC.

Subject may not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, WP:RS may apply.

Also nominating Elize Ryd for the same reasons. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 18:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~, as per my comments on IRC. Lack of reliable sources to demonstate the subject's notability outside of their band Amaranthe -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 18:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC) (@Alfiepates: Struck !vote, nom does not get an additional !vote. Sam Sailor 11:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to Amaranthe per italic note at the bottom of WP:NSINGER. --Majora (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep as a member of multiple notable bands, or redirect to Amaranthe (or other suitable target). --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - due to #6 at WP:SINGER; it is notable that he is in multiple notable bands. But the article needs expansion, so I say KEEP the article but then add an edit tag at the top calling for more sources and see if anyone comes up with more evidence of his independent notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't see him being a prominent member of those bands. Which is required for #6 to be relevant. Yes, he was in them, but it wasn't like he was the lead in any of them. There is minimal sources that discuss him individually. Always the bands. Not him. There is nothing to write about besides him being in the bands. What are you going to write? That he was a member in the bands? That isn't enough for a standalone article. --Majora (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A minor difference of opinion. Instead of deleting now, I am merely in favor of giving the community some more time to come up with additional sources, perhaps from other languages. AfDs could serve as a push to the community. I would have no dispute if the vote on this page ended otherwise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 07:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep member of several notable bands. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per point 6 at WP:SINGER. Member of notable bandBabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine Soares[edit]

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

Nothing significant to get an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romana Bashir[edit]

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

Spokeswoman with nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a minor Christian from Pakistan. If I did not know better I would think the majority of people in Pakistan are Christians, just because the majority of people we have articles on from there that make any mention to the subjects religion in a meaningful way are on Christians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would like to see someone who knows Urdu weigh in here. There is enough indication from what we have in English to show that's she likely notable. She's a women's rights and peace activist. The fact that she's Christian in a majority Muslim country is significant because it makes her a minority voice. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on sources available in English. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources include in-depth here, a mention here, a paragraph here, half the article here, quote here, a quote here, and there are more, which suggests, overall, that she's an important player for women's rights in a troubled nation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no evidence the sources within the article were checked before the nom. Also keep per links provided by Tomwsulcer. Mar4d (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because she is a representative then such kind of press releases will exist. We need coverage which discusses the individual so we can have an encyclopedic entry. Störm (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Lardenoye[edit]

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

Nothing significant to get an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right wrongs. This article outright admits that Lardenoye is not treated in the major source on Churches in Pakistan. Being ignored is a sign that someone is not notable, so on the whole this article shouts "this person is not notable."John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Désirée of Hohenzollern[edit]

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

Citing guidelines WP:INVALIDBIO & WP:BIOFAMILY & WP:NOTGENEALOGY; no indication of importance = I tried WP:A7 Db-person, but that was speedily removed with summary "being a princess an indication of notability", however the use of courtesy titles with no genuine validity, i.e. from old monarchies abolished in ~~1918~~ 1919, and having had such anacronistic titles added to one's name, not as titles but as names as per German law, does not make one an actual princess; the article's only sources are genealogy blogs. The status of these names (as names, not as titles) is clarified under German nobility: "All legal privileges and immunities of the royalty and nobility (appertaining to an individual, a family or any heirs) were officially abolished in 1919 by the Weimar Republic (1919–1933), and nobility is no longer conferred or recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany. Former hereditary titles are permitted as part of the surname." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS Even a failed proposal such as Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), which was intended to automatically include many formerly royal people as notable, did not infer that articles like this be OK ("Other close relations of formerly reigning royal families must qualify under WP:BIO."). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of independent notability. —Kusma (t·c) 10:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, suggest to the nominator that before nominating articles for A7 in the future, they actually read the rules for that criteria. The article does not need to meet our notability guidelines to be ineligible for speedy deletion, only some form of importance needs to be asserted, which it is here. Hopefully this helps to avoid confusion in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I still believe, as motivated above, that there is "no indication of importance" and thus that WP:A7 would have been applicable here. I also believe that we should comment on content, not on contributors. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For Free (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The topics on the dab page can easily be replaced by a hat note on "For Free". JE98 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:As per JE98. Not substantial enough to be a DAB page on its own. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not breaking any rules and it's a marginal case within WP:MULTIDABS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AMC (1910 British automobile)[edit]

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

I can find so little mention of this car or its manufacturer that I'm not quite convinced either existed at all. Even if they did exist, there are not enough sources for the article to ever be much longer than the three sentences it currently is. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous small producers from that era that have been lost in the "dustbin" of history. However, I found this reference to a catalog listing a British "A.M.C." steam car that includes an illustration of the 10 h.p. powered vehicle "that can be fitted with any design of body for two, three, or four persons"), but this description is from ten years earlier than given in WP article's title: "An Automobile Handbook". The Motor Car Journal. 2 (94). London: 708. 22 December 1900. Is this significant enough to give mention in WP? CZmarlin (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomiator withdrawn. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electric City Shock SC[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. No indication the team has played for the national cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - teams playing in 4th tier of US soccer have long been considered notable. Giant Snowman 10:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be a young football club, but as GSnowman pointed out they play in the 4th tier. Govvy (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, play in a notable league, plausible term. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - teams at this level are gneerally considered notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn but once again, fourth division in North America is not as notable as it is in the UK. This team has no coverage and so we're deleting other articles because it does not meet GNG but we keep association football articles because of a faulty criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CKOO-FM Old[edit]

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

Yet another instance of a radio station whose Wikipedia article got prematurely rush-jobbed into place the moment its license to start broadcasting was issued, but then the station apparently failed to launch and had its license expire. I can find no record, on either Spectrum Direct or REC Networks, of any station operating on this frequency in this town under any call sign, and I can find no other reliably sourced indication anywhere else either (not even the Canadian Communications Foundation, which keeps a page on every radio station that has ever existed in Canada) that it ever actually made it to air at all. But WP:NMEDIA requires us to wait until a radio station is verifiably on the air before we start the article, precisely because this exact sort of situation happens far more often than many people would think. And furthermore, this station's claimed call sign was assigned to another (already established) station a couple of weeks ago — which, at the very least, means that even if this station did make it to air at some point it didn't stay there very long.
Simply put, there's literally no evidence whatsoever that this station ever actually made it to air at all — and if we can't verify that it ever actually launched, we can't keep it. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Stations that are only on paper, but never reach the air, are not notable under WP:NMEDIA. This is the case here. The CKOO-FM callsign is now being used by another, unassociated station. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:38 on February 4, 2018 (UTC)
Delete: Bearcat not being able to find anything would be enough on its own for me, but I did my own independent research too. There are online sources that provide information about businesses belonging to the Kahkewistahaw Reserve. There's no radio station listed among those businesses, nor can I find any reference to there ever having been. Mlaffs (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The station never went to air; its authorization expired unbuilt. (They had until May 7, 2014 to launch, yet according to this revision from March 18, 2015, as of 2015, the station has yet to be launched and Kahkewistahaw Radio Station had not filed any renewals or applications to the CRTC. Does it mean anything that this statement was removed on March 24, 2017 by the since-indeffed Nathan Jay Williams (talk · contribs)? That same edit also reworded the article in such a way to indicate the station had launched, but without a single source for this. The same user also moved the article from the placeholder "105.7 FM Broadview, Saskatchewan" title to CKOO-FM.) Any theoretical presumed notability for broadcast stations applies exclusively to stations that actually make it on the air — and it appears that never happened for this station. (Having your call sign reassigned to another, already-existing station is not a good sign…) Such notability, of course, also requires sufficient coverage in reliable sources — and on that note, there of course isn't anywhere near the sourcing necessary to meet the general notability guideline, either. (The only non-CRTC source in the article, relating to the assignment of the call sign, is a message board, which does not constitute a reliable source.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gawd, I didn't even notice that Nathan Jay Williams was involved here. That's really just the ultimate kick in the ass: what got him editblocked was a combination of (1) repeated attempts to arbitrarily shut down pending AFD discussions on the glut of unlicensed tourist information radio stations that we killed off last year, and (2) repeated attempts to recreate the same articles again after they got deleted, without actually showing any improved evidence of notability or any better referencing, and after they got speedied and he got a warning not to recreate deleted articles, simply ignoring all of that and recreating them again. And when I went to SPI for a sockcheck on the creator of last year's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New 94.3 FM Kentville, Nova Scotia stunt, even though the SPI came back as "unrelated" McClellandRA actually confirmed that my initial suspicion that he was a Nathan Jay Williams sock was correct by admitting it on his own userpage, before finally getting blocked on a separate SPI initiated by somebody else. Good grief. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page move connected to this AfD has been executed after this AfD was complete. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51 on February 12, 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Alley[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable film; a search revealed mostly false positives, or at best the film's IMDb and Kickstarter pages (the latter of which dates back to around 2014 or so). Although the article claims to be a TV movie, I'm unable to find any pages that discuss this. Note that, unlike The American Shame (another article by the same creator that's also been nominated for deletion and also claims to star Lucky Yates), this film apparently does exist. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Sikandar Sultan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no in depth coverage in RS. the user who created this BLP has been blocked for socking. Saqib (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 05:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entry fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is in depth coverage including the articles cited. I don't understand the basis for this non. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all The page was recreated after a WP:REFUND application, approximately 8 hours after being previously deleted, on the grounds of (what I can see) being inherently notable. Nightfury 14:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL & significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Rashid_Ghafoor currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The page looks like a tribute page / possibly UPE. WP:DENY applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India-West[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No secondary sources. I can't independently verify any of the claims in the article or establish notability. I can't find any external sources with any information about the newspaper at all, to be honest. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: One claim in the article is that they're the highest ranked Indian-American newspaper on Alexa. I don't know what papers they're comparing to, but their rank isn't terribly high (168,774 global, 51,268 US, 25,834 India). I imagine a lot more Indian-Americans simply read the Times of India, which has a full-fledged US section, and is ranked 241 on Alexa (12 in India, 815 in US). -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NWEB / WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. The article is entirely self-cited including to the "India West online Media Kit" (!). Wikipedia is not a replacement for a company web site or a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Theo[edit]

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

Non-notable singer-songwriter. No indication either in the article or on Google search of musical notability. Google search finds nothing by independent third parties such as reviews or critics, only the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:NMUSIC at all (the only one it even approaches is #10, but that requires the main theme song for a TV show, not a mere scene placement, and still has to be better sourced than this before it counts); the writing tone here tilts noticeably in an advertorialized, rather than neutral and encyclopedic, direction (i.e. "Theo’s voice is similar to powerful singers like, Ella and Aretha, Amy Winehouse and Adele", sourced only to her own PR claims); and none of the sources that have been added are reliable ones for the purposes of establishing notability: it's referenced entirely to iTunes and her self-published profile on the commercial website of a music licensing agency, with no evidence of media coverage about her being shown. A musician does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because her own web presence nominally verifies that she exists — she needs to be the subject of media coverage, which verifies an accomplishment that passes an NMUSIC criterion, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. We're an encyclopedia, on which making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not a free advertising platform for emerging artists to promote themselves as part of trying to make it. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the music licensing agency is called SynchAudio, the creator's username is "SA2014", and their only other Wikipedia contribution to date is another artist of improperly established notability whose sourcing is also to SynchAudio. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Synch Audio" was founded in 2014. Or, in short form: SA2014. There's an entry on the COIN page.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NMUSIC মাখামাখি (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terrible article. No redeeming features. scope_creep (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search turns up no RS. The common link between this article and the similarly nominated Tony Crown article is both the article creator and the reference used called "synch audio blog".104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all sourcing, as it was either 1. itunes or 2. published by their promotion agent "Synch audio".104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable source, not notable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Crown[edit]

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

This article is a puff piece about a non-notable singer-songwriter that reads like an advertisement. Google search finds nothing written about him by third parties such as reviews or critics, only the usual vanity hits. No indication that the subject satisfies musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:NMUSIC at all (the only one it even approaches is #10, but that requires the main theme song for a TV show, not a mere scene placement, and still has to be better sourced than this before it counts); the writing tone here tilts noticeably in an advertorialized, rather than neutral and encyclopedic, direction; and none of the sources that have been added are reliable ones for the purposes of establishing notability: it's referenced entirely to iTunes and his self-published profile on the commercial website of a music licensing agency, with no evidence of media coverage about him being shown. A musician does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because his own web presence nominally verifies that he exists — he needs to be the subject of media coverage, which verifies an accomplishment that passes an NMUSIC criterion, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. We're an encyclopedia, on which making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not a free advertising platform for emerging artists to promote themselves as part of trying to make it. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the music licensing agency is called SynchAudio, the creator's username is "SA2014", and their only other Wikipedia contribution to date is another artist of improperly established notability whose sourcing is also to SynchAudio. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom মাখামাখি (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No valid refs. No coverage. Heavily promoted article. scope_creep (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search turns up no RS.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all sourcing, as it was either 1. itunes or 2. published by their promotion agent "Synch audio".104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, no notability. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Alhaje[edit]

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

Minor actor, playing minor parts in obscure TV series. The subject's agent has reportedly been aggressively trying to get this in here (see our Requests for Undeletion page), and the language reeks of promotion and press-agentry. Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original prod: "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Isn't covered significantly at all. Only one major TV role, and only mentioned incidentally in news coverage relating to that TV series." The article is merely a promo piece about an actor of currently limited notability that was REFUNDed by an SPA. Kb.au (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hey orange mike, thank you for all your contributions and work that you do on Wikipedia. In the issue regarding the deletion of the page Sam Alhaje, I will like to talk and address due to that fact that Sam Alhaje is a established actor and celebrity and is not part of small obscure television shows or roles. He is the main actor on 3 prime time television shows in Australia. Has been nominated for one of the countries biggest awards in the industry (Logie). And out of respect your comment about its “push from his agent” is non evident and an assumption. And in regards to “obscure” tv show, this is also not respectfully correct. The shows he’s been apart of and is the LEAD, have grabbed a national audience of over 1.4 million viewers in just one night. And in the concern regarding to the what "criterion" this person meets of the Australian Actor's page Sam Alhaje and with research and gathering, I honestly think he meets all the criterion. He was a Logie candidate for one of the awards in the TV industry in Australia Logie nomination (along with evidence below from his agent and all his radio interviews, red carpet speech and news paper articles which i believe is sufficient and strong information) and that is due to the fact that he has acquired and has been cast in 3 new television shows and tv series airing in 2018 in which he is the main character "KARIM" in one (concern for welfare which is airing on SBS in Australia, one of Australia's biggest tv networks.) A role on the ABC TV tv series "RAKE" as a supporting actor "DELL" to prestigious actor Richard Roxburgh and Damien Harvey. Another ABC TV brand new comedy as another supporting actor "JAL" in the upcoming show SANDO.( source is his very own agent catherine poulton and the production company Jungle entertainment".. link is http://www.cpmgt.com.au/talent/sam-alhaje/. And has also been on hold for a third session of the successful show that branched him out "here come the habibs". He has also received recognition with the sci fi feature film "hidden peaks" which has just been sold and began distribution in USA,ASIA & Australia with a release date in the first quarter of 2018. he also has just been cast in the new theatre play as the main character for the Parramatta riverside theatre play called "Lakemba". He has also just finalised a commercial where he worked with the fabulous Australian legend Roy Billing for the prestigious bank "Macquarie Bank Group". He has attained a following of over 11.9 thousand followers on instagram. He is a well established actor, public figure, and has attended almost every red carpet with a strong reputation for bringing the "fun" to the carpet. He has been nominated for Logies, and has been shortlisted for AACTA awards. He attends red carpets regularly (https://www.instagram.com/samalhaje/) He has a strong reputation throughout the community as he has worked with Cody Walker, Paul Walkers brother from fast and furious for is charity Reach Out World Wide Charity which was founded by Paul Walker. He is an ambassador for "White ribbon" which aims to stop violence against women. He has also been acknowledged by the Parliament for his support of the Australian Gynaecological Cancer Foundation, the Leukaemia Foundation's World's greatest Shave, the Mark Hughes Foundation for Brain Cancer Research in where he was on the highly rated "today show" on TV going around to the schools and doing live crosses. and the Reach Out World Wide Charity founded by Paul Walker. This is guy is a well established actor in Australia and is relevant in the tv/film and theatre industry. I believe with all this he meets:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

He’s a established actor and celebrity. He has 3 tv shows premiering in 2018. Halobot224 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Alhaje has a significant role in "Here Come the Habibs", his other roles don't appear to get over the line of "significance" per NACTOR's criteria (I agree with Kb.au's assessment that GNG isn't met either). "Rake" is indeed a notable series, but the role he's played seems not to be listed on the ABC's own website for the show or even on IMDB (which customarily lists everyone whose name can be verified, regardless of role). His other recurring roles may eventually lead to fame, but they haven't yet. Instagram followers in and of themselves don't amount to a claim to notability, and neither does "attending red carpets" in an industry where most people would happily attend the opening of the proverbial envelope (a "reputation for bringing the fun to the carpet" may count for something if there's the relevant level of coverage for that, but I'm not seeing it). Even his appearance on the Today Show here in Australia means less than you might think, given that the commercial networks use those breakfast programs as an opportunity for cross-promotion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ duplicate struck Hey big haz,

I feel that you have not addressed the whole information provided above. The guy has been nominated for a Logie. One of the biggest recognitions in the tv industry. And has not only appeared on the today show. He has appeared on 20 to one on channel 9 as well with the information mentioned above. He is one of the main characters on the sbs show “concern for welfare”. The guy does major TV networks gigs. And with regards to rake, he is apart of the cast for this years session to appear onto the 2018 show so he wouldn’t been listed as yet because it hasn’t passed. He has more credibility with credits then some of his co stars on the show and others in the industry and they still have no request to delete for their Wikipedia pages. And he has worked with massive Aussie legends and stars that I mentioned above. He has also appeared as the main celebrity to go around Sydney for the biggest newspaper article publishers in Australia “the daily telegraph” and go on a “food safari” and choose Sydney’s best. They don’t hire a no body for that. Sam Alhaje was in one of the highest rating shows of Aussie tv as the MAIN on a commercial network. I honestly do not see how he does not fit the criterion. And I would ask that doesn’t a social following prove the criterion of number 2. Which is Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. He fits all criteria. Halobot224 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I hadn't addressed every single point you raised (some of that may have been because of the size of the paragraph), but I'm happy to do so. A Logie nomination doesn't necessarily translate to notability, funnily enough. As far as NACTOR is concerned, it can point to the significance of the role the subject was nominated for - as indicated, I'm entirely willing to say that a main-cast role in "Habibs" qualifies - but that first criterion requires "multiple notable films, television shows...". Last I followed the matter, too, the Logies were voted by the audience, rather than any body of experts such as the Oscars are, which may count against their notability qua awards, but that's another story. As far as the various light-entertainment things he's been on for Ch9, my point above still stands. Turning up to do cross-promotion as a talking head on "20 to 1" (or "Today", or any other such appearance) doesn't count for much. It certainly doesn't amount to a "significant role", I'm sure you'd agree.

Regarding his "Rake" appearances for this year, I'm afraid that comes under the "too soon" heading I referred to earlier. Unless and until those appearances are made, there's simply no way of saying "they're significant", so we have to go on what we have at the moment. You've mentioned his "credibility" versus other cast members on that series, which really doesn't enter into it. You're entirely within your rights to nominate any actor you feel isn't as notable as Alhaje for deletion, and consensus will determine that outcome. Just because those articles currently exist doesn't mean that Alhaje gets one automatically.

With regards to the "food safari" you mention, I think we're going to have to disagree here. The Daily Telegraph is connected to Ch9 as well, for starters, so it's entirely possible that this would simply be more of the "Today"-style cross-promotion. I'll also point out that - at least here in Brisbane, where our newspapers may have different standards to the Tele - my younger brother has been asked to do a range of food-related commentaries for the papers at times, as he has previously worked for a food blog of minor notoriety. A person less notable than my younger brother, however, you'd be hard-pressed to find, particularly if I weren't in the room...

Social media following goes partway towards criterion 2, yes. I can point to plenty of people with large social media followings who aren't notable by Wikipedia's standards, though. Besides which, is there any coverage of this rabid fan base, or is it just the Instagram statistic by itself? Considering the prevalence of bot accounts and so on, those sorts of numbers should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Lastly, let's not kid ourselves that he meets "all criteria". The third one requires "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", which I'm sure we can both agree he's simply not been around long enough to have done. In years to come, sure, he may well do, although I suspect he will have got himself an article for one of the other criteria first. All of this goes back to the point I made earlier - he's clearly got a lot going on career-wise and seems poised for big things, to which I say good on him. To say that that means he gets a Wikipedia article right now, though, is to get it precisely backwards. He makes it big, then he gets the article, rather than the other way around. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on this matter, but i'm going to have to politely disagree with some points that you raised as they're are incorrect or don't have any evidence connected to it. The first and foremost that "channel 9" is connected to daily telegraph is not true. They're two separate entity's and have no connection and are independent from each other. Foxtel on the other hand may be connected to daily telegraph as its listed on "Subsidiaries" see the link for this all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph_(Sydney). And as for the Logie, it's not purely based on a role that he had did, it's based on his overall stance in the industry as he got nominated for "best new talent", which is not only the audiences decision, its the industry professionals themselves who gets it and who even is allowed to be accepted to be nominated for it. And i will ask, in regards to the fan base issue, isn't this the problem with the internet all round? every social media or every online presence can have bots etc, then how does one prove this then? if an audience on a prime time network show that achieves a national audience of 1 million and around that number week after week for over 2 years, doesn't that show solid evidence? That is solidly and legally tracked week after week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Come_the_Habibs#RatingsAnd if you add in his roles which is another international film and TV show he is notable on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2924488/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1and TV show which was aired on the discovery channel http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1971762/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_6. However i will say and definitely agree with you regarding the "too soon" with his upcoming tv shows, but then i'd say is it worth throwing away this page article on alhaje because of impatience? These should be aired not long from now. And i know it sounds like i'm "defending", but this guy is active on TV with not only one role, but a credit list that goes over 10. I just dont think we should throw it away right now. P.s. you're brother sounds like he's got the best job in the world! haha Halobot224 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While you're correct that Ch9 and the Tele aren't connected to each other, I still fail to see why being asked to talk about his favourite places to eat makes him notable. Before you raise the obvious response that "it shows that he's famous", we need to remember that "famous" and "notable" don't always mean the same thing.

To your point about the Logie, while I appreciate that it's not specifically an award for "Habibs" so much as an overall "best newcomer" kind of thing, the fact remains that he was nominated (didn't win), based almost entirely on his role in one particular show (yes, a major role in what I'm reliably informed is a relatively major show). That doesn't translate to a pass on the first criterion of NACTOR, which requires significant "roles" (plural) in "multiple notable...television shows" (plural). I don't dispute that he's been in multiple notable shows, but it's a question of the significance of his other appearances, which is not very high at best. I do also share Dorsetonian's concern about the veracity of this Logie nomination, although the wording of that link is sufficiently vague as to admit of both interpretations.

You raise a valid point about how one measures a fan base, and I'll admit I don't have a specific answer for you (I don't tend to contribute to AfDs on actors and the like, so someone else may have more of an answer. That said, I don't at all subscribe to the view that an audience of X viewers for show Y means that they're all fans of every single actor on the show. I may be more selective in my TV viewing than the average, but there are definitely series I've watched despite not being able to stand one of the cast or guests or whoever. If the question were about the notability of "Habibs", I'd agree that that's a sensible way to measure the fan support, but remember that I don't normally deal in this area.

Lastly, to your comment about not "throwing the article away" right now because he might be about to become notable. The entire point, though, is that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, as mentioned earlier. Until someone or something is notable, they aren't. Just as Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on (to take an invented example) the band who rehearses in the garage across the street from me, even if they're so close to getting a record deal as makes no difference, neither should Wikipedia have an article on an actor who's about to hit the big time until he does actually hit it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the bumptious defence of the article above, notability is measured in terms of coverage in reliable sources and not only is it virtually non-existent, what little there is is also only for one thing. I can find no evidence to support the the claims of notability - the forthcoming roles don't appear to have coverage and I can find no evidence he has ever been nominated for a Logie (indeed, the link given to support that claim appears to be to a page lobbying for his nomination). At the very best this is WP:TOOSOON. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry if you think i'm "bumptious defending" the article. I'm not. There are a ton of reliable sources that are both online and print for this actor Sam Alhaje to show notability. I just don't want to throw away a page of a notable celebrity. The evidence that he has been nominated is linked here that comes from the official page channel 9 page and habibs page. https://www.facebook.com/HereComeTheHabibs/posts/1173545099395378:0 Halobot224 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a "Here Come The Habibs" facebook post from December 2016 that says "Toufic's got big ambitions and a Logie for Best New Talent is next on his list! VOTE for Sam Alhaje in the #TVWeekLogies" but the Best New Talent nominees announced in March 2017 [22] did not include him - which is why it appears to be simply lobbying for his nomination. It certainly does not appear to be evidence of a nomination. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alhaje did NOT get nominated for a Logie. He may have been in the running but was not one five who got nominated. Nothing satisfying NACTOR or GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. The coverage found consists of only trivial mentions rather than significant coverage. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmick weapon[edit]

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

No verifiable content. The term is generic and there are no references to it being used to refer to Westerns in particular. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the term "gimmick weapon" is one that is used, I'm finding no evidence that this has ever been used as a specific, notable term in regards to Westerns. As such, it not only fails in terms on notability, but also appears to be entirely WP:OR. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem like this is a notable term._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:42, 11 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. All of the arguments for keeping are variations on, "But, it's on de", which isn't a valid argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, also see the related WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Josef Schmalz -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Schmalz[edit]

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

The IP user that created this article has copied and pasted the draft of the same name into mainspace despite it having been repeatedly declined due to insufficient evidence of notability, thereby purposefully bypassing the AfC process. They assert that Schmalz is notable because there's an article about him in the German wikipedia, and because that German article was speedily kept when it was nominated for deletion. However based on EN criteria, Schmalz fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER and could only meet the "released two albums on a mainstream label" criteria of WP:MUSICBIO (Metronome Records) though I think that is aimed at singers/musicians rather than conductors/composers.

Review of references
Ref#	Source	Comment
1	DVHH	Just a photo of the band
2	DVHH	the same photo of the band
3	heimathaus-billed.de	Obituary - three paragraphs. Not an independent source
4	Eugen Brixel	One sentence mention in book. Not in depth coverage
5	glogowatz.de	CD sleeve - not independent source nor in depth coverage
6	discogs.com	Verifies that an album existed, but no mention of Schmalz
7	banater-schwaben.org	No mention of Schmalz
8	glogowatz.de	Verifies that a CD exists. Mention of Schmalz only confirms where he was born.
9	banater-schwaben.org	Confirms he was given award, but only tiny amount of coverage about him, and not an independent source
10	heimathaus-billed.de	Audio sample from the CD, link to a review by Peter Krier (same text as on CD liner? - but at least easy to read through Google Translate)

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. note: this may seem strange, since I appear to have created the article, but all I did was copy it from the Talk to Article space (with some misgivings on notability) on the grounds that it looked like a newbie mistake. I should have tagged it, though.Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: no worries. You weren't to know there was a copy of it in draft space. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked. Sorry. Kleuske (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the ((There is a draft for this article)) template should have been visible at the top of edit window; for an example of how it looks try open Lex Eisenhardt. Strictly speaking, we should not cut-and-paste from one page to another without attribution, see WP:CUTPASTE. If it is of any consolation, geachte Kleuske, yours truly failed to tag the talk page correctly with ((Db-talk)) the second time it was created. Best, Sam Sailor 12:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the subject's notability, but the integrity of the AfD process requires deletion of its circumvention. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8, Curb Safe Charmer's analysis is correct, subject does not yet meet the inclusion criteria, including failing for now at least the basic notability guideline for people. A few words as a follow up to nom's remarks: several IPs, probably the same user on a dynamic connection, have pushed for Draft:Josef Schmalz to be accepted, including filing a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. At the same time they have now copied the draft three times onto Talk:Josef Schmalz. Unregistered users can not create pages in namespace 0 (main space), they can however start pages in namespace 1 (talk space). Several of us failed to take the right action in this case: tag the talk page with ((Db-talk)). Showing good faith is fine, but we should be alert to this method being a potential backdoor to main space. Sam Sailor 12:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully translation of german accepted version https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Schmalz_(Musiker) with notability and passed deletion discussion: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/8._Mai_2017#Josef_Schmalz_(Musiker)_(LAE) (LAE = decision: No deletion) --188.194.156.154 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC) — 188.194.156.154 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]
- Has little to no influence of the outcome of the AFD discussion here on English Wikipedia. I have asked IP not to resubmit Draft:Josef Schmalz unless better sources are presented. Sam Sailor 16:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with a tentative Keep based on my limited understanding of the en notability criteria. First some general comments on the notability criteria. Its normally assumed the De notability criteria are stricter as the criteria here. But in this case this might not be the case. One part that the German notability tries to focus on is time surviving notability compared to short term news tickers. I don't see anything like this on the notability page here. Nevertheless you are talking here about somebody who did the notable initial publication in the late 70s and the 80s and it is still played and reproduced as of today (with the last CD in the article the dedicated CD of his work in 2012). Together with the implicit assumption that his songs have been played live in all this 30, now nearly 40 years. This kind of music and the brass bands are still highly present in Germany. Maybe not as present as in the past, but still present. On top of this there has been a lot of misconception and misunderstanding in the draft discussion. In particular on the references. As already said his main work is from before the internet and from before the almighty, complete databanks. But there is still on the mentioned work in all cases plausible reverence, and in most of them even an independent reverence. The CD from 2012 was published in his honor and clearly states that it is about his compositions. The description and the links might be from a private Homage, but it is independent in the dnb http://d-nb.info/1031951865 and other places. The name of (some) of his songs are therefore known, so in the old LP's from the 80's his work can therefore be identified even if discogs only knows the name of the songs without mentioning the name Schmalz. On top in some cases the name might not be in the data, but can be seen on the pictures of the LP in discogs. Something that hasn't been mentioned before (and I don't know if it matters) is the fact that the sheet music of his works have been published by notable publishers. (And I’m not putting it in the article. That’s wikipadia nonsense to put stuff into an article just to prove notability because its there, because in context of the article and the reader (so real life) it doesn’t matter.) --Fano (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- Wikipedia is world wide and if this person is worth mentioning in another Wikipedia Language then: keep it as mentioned through Template:Translated page -- MeBaLa (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — MeBaLa (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]

@MeBaLa: as a new editor who has only contributed to this article you may not be familiar with the WP:OTHERLANGS section of 'Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions'. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: Why do you not read what Fano writes, and read it again, and read again again and again until you understand the relevance of this person also in en:WP? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josef_Schmalz&diff=823301388&oldid=823162835

Are you alive since 1960 or not and still in the media present?

MeBaLa (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MeBaLa: It is clear that you feel strongly about the subject. In deletion discussions, we don't each get a vote - whether the article is kept or deleted is based on the strengths of the arguments put forward, based on the guidelines and policies that Wikipedia is based on. Try to put forward your own answer to how Schmalz meets the WP:COMPOSER criteria. Please see also Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! for useful advice on how to participate here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This dead person meets the following criterias:

1.Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

3.Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.

5.Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.

6.Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

Find you the sources and clear it. Because to find something after WW2 after deportation of Romania is hard. And for everything after 1970 you have evidence in several LPs, CDs, compilations, TV shows, and the booklets!!! --MeBaLa (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: I'm still puzzled that a composer, who has composed multiple works that have been puplished by multiple notable artists under notable lables should not be notable himselve. (Independent from the aditional live plays.)--Fano (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Josef_Schmalz&diff=823670077&oldid=823181458 out of http://www.zentrum.hu/wp-content/uploads/Forum-03-M%C3%84RZ-2014.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.158.8 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not appear to meet our guidelines for establishing WP:N. I am also singularly unimpressed with the various pro-Keep comments which seem to either ignore our guidelines or suggest that being accepted on the German Wikipedia should be sufficient. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I suggest that comments from additional users might be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nice job, I've never seen anyone put together a table to analyze the sources in an article before. The nomination is spot on, there is not enough to establish notability. And whatever happens on German Wikipedia is irrelevant here.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rusf10: Check out ((Source assess)). Sam Sailor 11:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although more for the notability reasons than those of the article's chequered creation history. I'm certainly happy to review this opinion if arguments are made in line with the guidelines (and with proof) in favour of keeping the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

„Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible.“

Though we create the article about the notable brass band Original Donauschwaben! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.158.8 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see Draft:Original Donauschwaben --188.194.158.8 (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC) — 188.194.158.8 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]

Are you kidding:

Submission declined on 4 February 2018 by Heliosxeros (talk).

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

For Draft:Original Donauschwaben???????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.158.8 (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The IP editor has now created Draft:Original Donauschwaben. It was declined by Heliosxeros. The IP editor has reacted by leaving a message on the reviewer's talk page telling them to 'F off'. Charming. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cleaned up Draft:Original Donauschwaben, it contained an unattributed copy-paste of Josef Schmalz, and I have declined the draft. Sam Sailor 11:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

??? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Original_Donauschwaben&diff=823943965&oldid=823939446

???

Why is Josef Schmalz removed from the article?!

You want delete Josef Schmalz and do not accept Draft:Josef Schmalz and then with repect of the sentences in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists do not want him in this article?

Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably DETAILED article should be MERGED into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible.«

--188.194.158.8 (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP user (by the way, why don't you create a username so we know what to call you?) That applies where there's insufficient information available about the person who composed the music and instead the content about the composer is added to an article about their compositions. Per the guideline that you quoted, if a composer like Schmalz is known for multiple works, that isn't going to work. What you are proposing is to include information about a conductor into an article about the band that he conducted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the IP?

Good work with the table analysing the references. The fact that an article exists in the German Wiki doesnt mean that the article has met the inclusion criteria in the English encyclopedia. I am not familair with the German wiki, but from my limited experience with the english wiki, notability has not been established. No apparent reason or significance to the article. Moreover, bypassing AfC is a sly trick and wouldn't this be gaming the system, Abuse of process? EROS ^message 14:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad analysed table: no mention when he is on several photos is a lie! --89.204.135.54 (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a photo doesn't constitute in depth, independent coverage. It is a primary source so doesn't contribute towards notability. See WP:BASIC. Nobody is disputing his role in the band. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Laursen[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NHOCKEY, and while I can't speak for the notability of veterans, the page is largely made by one user (who I suspect is the subject of the article; the numbers of the username match his birthdate, and they have mainly only worked on this page), and sounds more like a promotional article for the individual. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or Delete: The article shows some potential, however it suffers from WP:COISELF. Besides being a war veteran, nothing else is significant. (WP:CONTN, WP:NTEMP, WP:SUSTAINED) Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SOLDIER big time: Rank and highest award. I can't speak to Athlete. The bit about social media presence makes me think WP:NOTWEBHOST may need to be invoked as well. The match between the DOB and the numbers in the username is suspicious.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can speak to NHOCKEY, and he doesn't come remotely close; this "USA Warriors" team seems to be an amateur charity outfit. Fair enough, but notability isn't inherited no matter which amateur senior team he plays for or how many selfies he's taken with NHLers. Ravenswing 03:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt national ice hockey team[edit]

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

There is no Egyptian ice hockey association, or national body. This article is about club teams that are not notable, from Egypt. 18abruce (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice hockey in Egypt and User talk:AaronWikia#Speedy deletion nomination of Ice hockey in Egypt. The creation of the Egypt national ice hockey team article appears to be an attempt to get around those deletions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article does appear to be about a national team, not club teams. It mentions the players' clubs, but that's pretty standard for this kind of article. If this really isn't an official sanctioned team, I guess the article should be deleted, but I'd like to do more research before !voting. Smartyllama (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The only links available send you to the two club teams from Egypt, there is no national sporting body. And the National Teams of Ice Hockey website (which has details on just about every obscure national team) states: "Ice Hockey in Egypt is not a member of the International Ice Hockey Federation nor does it have a federation or an association, but a group of players form a national team and in 2017 Egypt played 2 exhibition games in Saint-Laurent, Quebec against Lebanon & Morocco. Egyptian players are trying to grow the game in their country." By that logic nearly every caribbean nation would have a national team by virtue of participating in the "Canadian National Pond Hockey tournament" in New Brunswick, because they played a hockey game with other guys from their country. You don't have to be recognized by the IIHF, but they should be recognized by their own country.18abruce (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also unclear to me whether National Teams of Ice Hockey should be considered a reliable source. It looks rather like a personal website. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I should point out that the website for egyptian hockey has this helpful statement at the top, "Please note Egypt does not currently have an Official Ice Hockey Federation or National Ice Hockey Team." And this is used as a source for a page for the Egyptian National Ice Hockey Team.18abruce (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the notability requirements. Egypt is not listed as an IIHF member, and the team doesn't meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable references, and the referencing that does exist suggests that this isn't part of any international organizations, it's simply a team of people from Egypt. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG without reliable sources. Flibirigit (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayu Nozomi[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, passing mentions, industry PR materials, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near meeting any notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata. Sandstein 19:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inquivesta[edit]

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

Local college event with very little substantially sourced claim for notability, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Muhandes (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article of Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata Hagennos (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what properly sourced, non-promotional material there is to merge. The two sentences in the article is about what it is worth. --Muhandes (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: I cannot find anything promotional about this article. Everything mentioned in the article is true-to-the-fact and is related to the article. Whatever information provided in the article which can be cited, has been cited. Any further citable information related to the article can be added in the future. You mentioned, "The two sentences in the article is about what it is worth". If you're referring to the article IISER Kolkata, which I believe you are, then you'll find the sentence in that article, "The college organizes a major annual festival, Inquivesta, which is promoted as one of the first and the biggest science fest of the country". An event of a premier science institute in India (institute of national importance), which is "promoted as one of the first and the biggest science fest of the country", should have its independent article. We already have multiple articles about college fests of institutes of national importance in India here on Wikipedia. I believe Inquivesta should be no different. Avinash dash1997 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash dash1997, please see WP:AFDFORMAT. It is unclear from your comment whether you are recommending a course of action and what that course of action is, or just making an observation. It may appear from your comment that you are supporting the Merge !vote which I don't believe is what you meant to do. If you meant to recommend we keep the article please do so appropriatly and sustain this recomendation with an argument that addresses the deletion rationale, i.e. that there is little substantially sourced claim for notability and the article fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. --Muhandes (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: If I could furnish a documented statement from the official authority of the institute IISER Kolkata, stating that all of the information about Inquivesta is legitimate, could it be regarded as a justifiable substantial source of information? The institute could put up certain information on its official website in this regard, which can be used as a reliable reference source. Avinash dash1997 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines I linked above, WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. The requirement is to show significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time, in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A statement of the institute has absolutely no relevance. --Muhandes (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It's already mentioned in the article on the colege, and none of the details are worth merging. But a redirect seems reasonable . DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata: It appears to be written as a piece of promotion/advertisment, nothing more. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rational ClearCase UCM[edit]

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

A software addon? that does not appear to be independently notable of Rational ClearCase. Mattg82 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Moor Allerton. Would be great to see some mention of the estate in Moor Allerton, so that this doesn't end up at RfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cranmer Bank[edit]

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

seems to be some sort of housing development with retail stores underneath. The article is completely unsourced as it has been for 12 years. Nothing indicates any notability. Rusf10 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is just some housing on a single road, I'd guess 100 homes. Housing estates can be notable but this one doesn't have any refs and I doubt there are any. Szzuk (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Redirect. Szzuk (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moor Allerton, unless sources specifically covering the estate can be found. It's a plausible search term. – Joe (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Moore Allerton. Not independently notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Not a settlement (per OS) and not an administrative district, there doesn't appear to be sources to show notability (see WP:GEOLAND, populated places without legal recognition). ~~Geograph also shows that there is also one in Shropshire but that to falls below an OS settlement.~~ That is Creamore Bank. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha C. Boschulte Middle School[edit]

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

No reason is given for topics notability. It is just an ordinary middle school. WP:NN. Student7 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our established practice of almost always keeping high school articles as if they were notable, in order to avoid thousands of contentious AfDs has a flip side: almost always deleting middle school articles. It was intended as a compromise. If the compromise should break down , then it will be time to try to find sources for articles like this. Based on experience from before we had the compromise, I could probably do it about 1/4 of the time--possibly 1/2 tyhe time in NYC. But I think it better to concentrate efforts elsewhere DGG ( talk ) 11:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to keep an article on a middle school we need to show the institution actually meets notability guidelines, that is not shown here. Otherwise we would need an article on Robert Burns Elementary Middle School in Detroit where I teach. We have actually had news footage from our school shown in Detroit Area news reports this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge I was going to suggest this be redirected to Bovoni, U.S. Virgin Islands. We've been redirecting articles on middle schools to school districts or localities since almost the beginning of the encyclopedia. While some call that circular reasoning, it is done because it works. But when I clicked on find sources, I was surprised to find 83 news stories and a lot of other info. Much of this is routine coverage, but some of it is not, including the fact that the basketball team won an international competition.[23] I actually think this school could pass WP:gng, but still believe we would be best served by merging it with the locality (which at this point is a very bare stub).Jacona (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statesman Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. All references I could find were either put out by the Institute itself, or originated from Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J. Smith. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In fact, not the subject of any real coverage at all. Article also fails to make a claim of notability - a LinkedIn post saying a member once spoke with Tony Abbott, and an indication they were once involved in the sale of a piece of clothing, are insufficient claims to fame to warrant an encyclopedia article. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)t[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per euryalus and lankivell's points JarrahTree 05:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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