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. The headcount is exactly split between keep and not keep (merge, redirect, delete). The basic issue, in terms of policy, is whether the subject is notable independently of his organization. Contributors address the relevant sources in greatly varying level of detail, but all that becomes clear after reading (or, in some cases, admittedly glancing over) the walls of text below is that there is no agreement on how independent / in-depth / relevant the sources at issue are, and that such disagreement is not amenable to a resolution by fiat because it's a matter of editorial judgment. Both in terms of numbers and of strength of argument, therefore, we have no consensus about what to do here, and as a result the article is kept by default. A merger discussion can still be had on the talk page. Sandstein 21:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel Neuer[edit]

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

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

Puff piece about person who is not independently notable. All press mentions are related to UN Watch, nothing about anything Neuer has done. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I rarely vote "keep" at BLP AfD's, but, while I agree that this is a shitty article in need of clean up, Neuer does seem to pass WP:GNG. He's been published in multiple notable media. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral (changed from "keep"). Upon a more-thorough examination of the sources, I'm no longer fully convinced of his notability. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meet WP:GNG For example [1] [2] also meets WP:AUTHOR as widely quoted in WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is covered as a subject here - [3] [4] [5] - as well as being very widely covered for his duties at UN Watch.Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the its original target article. Come on guys, be objective (like Joefromrandb) please. You cannot pass those interviews and the subject's own material off as passing GNG; we all know those are primary sources. And whoever wrote this article may have mislead you: hardly any of the sources in the article actually describe the subject! The UN Watch is notable but notability is not inherited hence a redirect is the only reasonable solution when we evaluate this puff piece objectively.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems a bit too obvious and clear to even explain the reasoning. Per users Shrike and Icewhiz, who provided useful addtional links that should be integrated into the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I encourage editors to read WP:NOPAGE and consider whether Neuer is ever in the news without being cited as the embodiment of UN Watch. Is it his opinion that is widely published, or are policy briefs from UN Watch being widely republished? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: Before I begin I will state that this article should be scrutinized in depth. As it stands consensus is leaning towards keep. I might not have even looked at it but for the changed !vote expressing notability doubts, on an article with 38 references, and considering the nominators comments. Otr500 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, this is a puff piece (note the paragraph I just removed...typical of such articles), and the cited sources all cite him as the boss of the organization he runs, which was the reason for the redirect in the first place. In that respect he is like the non-notable member of a notable band, where we also redirect to the band. Delete, or maybe merge some of the material if that isn't already in the (also puffy) UN Watch article. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already run into refbombing issues. Most of the time references concern content, but WP:OVERCITE can be an issue of masking. Otr500 (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The second reference establishes through reliable sourcing the subject is the Executive Director of UN Watch. Since that has not been contested there only needs to be one or two if relevant but references 3 through 6 (4 of them) appear agenda based and certainly appear as weasel references. Otr500 (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at most Redirect to UN Watch. Notability isn't inherited, so being executive director of a notable organisation doesn't automatically make one notable enough for a stand-alone article, only notable enough for a redirect to the organisation. If even that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I find it important to note that since the article has been updated with additional links and information and now meets all WP:BLP criteria, the argument that "he's only the executive director of this org" may be less relevant than before. Shalom11111 (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to UN Watch. The first 20 media sources I found mentioning Neuer do so in the context of UN Watch. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact he has a highly prominent role in UN Watch does not preclude notability as a person. The top-20 media hits of just about any long-time leader of an organization (or company, country, etc.) would typically be to the person in the context of the organization. The question should be whether he is also covered as a person (which he is), and whether there is additional coverage (not actually necessary, but in this case - there is).Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• But his notability as a person is wholly tied to his leadership of UN Watch. Per WP:NOPAGE, we should discuss Neuer's work at the UN Watch page, to make that article more complete. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a brief timeline of Neuer's career:

• Grew up in Montreal
• Bachelor of Arts degree from Concordia University in 1993[6]
• Masters degree from Hebrew University of Jerusalem (no date)
• Fellow at Shalem Center think tank (no dates)
• Clerk at the Israel Supreme Court (no dates)
• Passed the New York Bar as Hillel Calman Neuer in 2001[7]
• Associate attorney at Paul, Weiss in New York, including team work on the 1997–2001 Raytheon/Hughes case, and team work on the PG&E bankruptcy case which ended in 2004[8]
• Replaced Andrew Srulevitch as Executive Director of UN Watch ca. 2004

• None of the career prior to 2004 gives Neuer any notability with relation to Wikipedia:Notability (people). The only career element that puts him in the media is being the executive director of UN Watch. It's not like UN Watch hired an already-famous lawyer to be their executive director. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well sourced article on widely published and widely cited human rights advocate who champions controversial causes. Note that Users Shrike and Icewhiz link to a long interview with Neuer in the Canadian Jewish News, Hillel Neuer: Jewish eyes on the United Nations, and to a profile in the Jerusalem Post A Zionist at the United Nations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There appears to be enough WP:RS sourced in the article as mentioned above to fulfill WP:GNG. - Galatz^Talk 19:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he is notable, is in the news, and passes muster. He speaks and gives testimony and this should have been a snow keep from the start. I echo Icewhiz as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to UN Watch. We dont need an article on each and every selfpromoter out there. Huldra (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to see how "selfpromoter" applies to Neuer, a man whose work is widely discussed by others. For example, Chapter 3 of Land of Blue Helmets: The United Nations and the Arab World, By Karim Makdisi, Vijay Prashad (University of Califonria Press, 2016), is by Richard Falk. Starting on p. 79, Falk details what he describes as Neuer's ongoing efforts to discredit Falk by documenting Falk's activities, documentation that Falk disparages, but, nevertheless, Falk credits Neuer's documentation of Falk's writing by Neuer with resulting in condemnations of Falk by Ban Ki-Moon, Susan Rice, Samantha Power. This backhanded homage to Neuer as a notable player at the U.N. from Falk, a vocal opponent of the Jewish State, is just one example of the WP:INDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV of Neuer's work in scholarly books and articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect.Try rewriting that garbled piece (' Falk credits Neuer's documentation of Falk's writing by Neuer') piece of nonsensical misreportage. Illustrating 'widely discussed' by citing a passing comment by Richard Falk, (someone who, unlike Hillel, is profoundly committed to human rights, as opposed to 'Jewish' rights only) dismissing his absurd monomaniacal brashness can, only in the most peculiar type of reading, be construed as 'crediting' Neuer in a kind of 'backhand homage' and proving in-depth scholarly coverage of Neuer's work. If you think a universally known Ban Ki-Moon is a Dutchman (Van Ki-Moon) perhaps you are googling too quickly to understand these topics. Nearly everything I google on Neuer and Falk, to take one topic, turns out to be a meme cycle going back to UN Watch's self-promotional garbage.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing your bias Neuer does indeed give a lot of time to Israel, but that is because the UNHRC does. I did not know there is a large population of Jews in the Congo. Maybe you are just too focused on Israel to see where else the UN Watch, and Neuer, criticize the UNHRC. Regardless, it is quite clear that Neuer himself is notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your selective use of 'bias' reminds me of what David McLellan said of 'ideology'. Users of both words tend to think it refers to what people other than themselves display. As to Neuer's passionate concerns for human rights in the Congo, the details of that story were anticipated a century and a half ago by Charles Dickens in Bleak House. His marvelous caricature, Mrs Jellyby, is passionately devoted to human rights in the Congo, much to the negligence and detriment of her household and the children in its backyard. The whole logic of inanity in these things is summed up best by a simile.If a mafia thug goes public, joining a general chorus of outraged complaints that some chap in the city is given to punching up his neighbours, that fellow would be entitled to come back screaming 'hypocrisy'. A neutral observer would say that both are pseudo-moralists, since they decry behavior they themselves engage in, and do so only to take the heat out of criticism of their own continued and committed contempt for an ethical life.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG can you go anywhere, Sir Joseph, without throwing in "bias" as if it is magic pixie dust? At any rate that dust seems to have clouded your vision: you are actually supporting the argument that the subject's notability is intertwined with that of his organization, and thus I take your comment as support for a redirect. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"someone who, unlike Hillel, is profoundly committed to human rights, as opposed to 'Jewish' rights only)" is a biased statement. That you can't see it as such is not surprising. It is disgusting on Nishidani's part to claim that the Neuer is only concerned with Jewish people. Just today UN Watch released a critique of Iran's representative. And no, just because Neuer is executive director of UN Watch, doesn't mean that is his only notability. And you speak of clouded vision, when it's clear that Nishidani's vision is so clouded that he will take any opportunity to put in an anti-Israel comment and pontificate given the opportunity to do so. Again, when someone defends Falk and says Neuer is not committed to human rights, that is bias, and that has no place here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me one, just one, example of UN Watch and, specifically, Hillel Neuer speaking directly of their concerns for the systematic injustices meted out to Palestinians over 50 years of military occupation, and I might believe you. For it is commonplace for the very men who execute these policies, on retirement, like Ami Ayalon, Carmi Gillon and Yuval Diskin to come out publicly(also here) and state that the disastrous effect of this dehumanization is a threat to Israel's democracy. If the Shin Bet, Israel's intelligence service, admits Palestinian human rights are systematically abused, and praised soldiers who blow the whistle, Neuer, who kept nagging at Richard Falk for saying precisely this, which is obvious, if he is, as claimed, a 'human' rights activist, should have an equally strong record of speaking up along similar lines rather than branding decent men who happen to be Jewish 'anti-Semites'. I can find none. All I can find is that the external enemies of Israel are targeted for their human rights abuses. To note this is not 'bias'. My comments are not 'anti-Israel', any more than marching in anti-war protests during the Vietnam war, as millions of Americans did, is proof I was 'anti-American. Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that some editors appear to be drawing their descriptions of Neuer from aggressively anti-Israel sources,such as Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which has described Neuer as UN Watch's "self-promoting" director".(open access link here: Will Samantha Power Be Loyal to Her Principles or to the Israel Lobby?. However, unlike Nishidani, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has the honesty to assert that because Neuer and UN Watch had been criticized for "general insouciance about the U.N.'s work in any context other than Israel. Sensitive to that criticism, it has indeed worked with other organizations to highlight human rights abusers" in other parts of the world. Note also that published criticism of Neuer underscores his notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, and typical of Nishidani. Reading his comment one would assume that it's only Neuer calling out Falk. One just has to do a quick google search to see all the other government and UN officials calling out Falk and his antisemitism. Indeed, someone who posts antisemitic cartoons is not a "decent" person. The UN chief himself, rejected a Falk authored report. Let's not forget Falk is a "former" UN official specifically for his antisemitism and antitruth statements. That a person can say the US government and not Al-Qaida was behind 9/11, or that the Boston bombing was justified doesn't make a person "decent." I guess in your world, as long as you criticize Israel or the Jews, then you are decent, regardless of how evil you are with everything else. [9], [10], [11], [12] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad you are using your time wisely, Sir Joseph. Likewise to you Gregory.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• TheGracefulSlick I thought you said you were going to stay out of these discussions? - Galatz^Talk 19:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Galatz is Neuer a terrorist? I don't think you should be commenting on my editing habits if you have no idea what I voluntarily prohibited myself from. "Voluntarily" being a key word.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You, SJ, realize of course that in writing here:

Let's not forget Falk is a "former" UN official specifically for his antisemitism and antitruth statements. . . .I guess in your world, as long as you criticize Israel or the Jews, then you are decent, regardless of how evil you are with everything else.

That you have violated WP:BLP by asserting that he is (a) anti-Semitic (b) a deliberate liar and that (c) you have made a surmise about my personal beliefs ( WP:NPA) in adding that (a) I criticize Jews (b) think anyone critical of either Israel or Jews is ipso facto decent and (c) such people are 'evil'. That's not a bad effort for an editor frequently complaining about me for some putative 'incivility' that is deleterious to wikipedia. I note that your list of smears against Falk is copied straight from Un Watch's smear-sheet, with nary an effort to check the truth of that crap. Editors are supposed to ensure that, whatever their personal beliefs, articles are to be composed 'neutrally' and not serve as excuses for lobbying for more exposure to the meme cycle of self-referential clichés which, as in this article, are out there as part of the campaign for a politics of national self-justification. It looks like the boots are on the ground in lockstep to have this trivia accepted, whatever the quality of the arguments, so further comments would be foruming pointlessly.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the Secretary General of the United Nations at his word over CounterPunch. It is quite clear that certain subjects should not be discussed with you as you apparently are unable to dialogue with people without resorting to your usual. I also have no BLP violation, I said he was fired due to his antisemitism and antitruth statements and that is 100% correct and RS. The UN and HRW fired Falk for antisemtic and antitruth statements, about Jews, the US, 9/11 and the Boston Bombing. Don't feel that you have to get the last word in, I have no interest in debating with you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said he was fired due to his antisemitism and antitruth statements and that is 100% correct and RS. The UN and HRW fired Falk for antisemtic and antitruth statements, about Jews, the US, 9/11 and the Boston Bombing.

If you cannot be patient enough to reach beyond youtube and examine each of those furphies, you shouldn't be editing here. None of that is true, and you cannot document that Falk was fired for anti-Semitism and antitruth statements by both the UN and Human Rights Watch. The story of his exiting Human Right Watch is elaborately explained by Phyllis Bennis in her essay. 'Human Rights Watch: Time to stand with human rights defenders,' Al Jazeera 9 January 2013, which notes that HRW, when asked by 40 Human Rights groups throughout the world to apologize for insulting Falk, admitted that Neuer's UN Watch statement, which caused Ban Ki-Moon and Rice's furore was full of 'inaccuracies and falsehoods'. The UN never fired Falk. He left when his 6 year term expired. It coincided with the appointment of his wife Hilal Elver's UN appointment as special rapporteur on the right to food, which meant Neuer went for the jugular and tried to get at the retired (and unpaid) Falk by attacking his wife's job at the UN as 'nepotism'. Not a word of the history of UN Watch's smear campaigns or its reputation for gross distortions and inaccuracies in 'reporting' on critics of Israeli policies regarding Palestinians is registered on Neuer or Un Watch's page. It's all boosterism, and I suspect, has an odour of self-promotion. So, you are wrong, you smeared a living person by gullibly repeating demonstrable falsehoods, of which the most egregious is that UN Watch distortion of his remarks re blowback concerning the Boston Marathon attack.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A few non-paywalled sources on Falk: Canada lambasts UN official for saying Boston bombings caused by 'American global domination project'; (Falk) Evangelist for anti-Semitism strikes again; Richard Falk’s hatred of USA, Israel and Jews; Here's how to dump UN official who smeared US after Boston attacks. It's not a "smear campaign" because Neuer was citing the racist, hate-filled, antisemitis statement Falk actually made. Coverage of Neuer calling Falk out over his anti-Israel and anti-America statements is yet more evidence of Neuer's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you haven't done the minimal amount of work to read all relevant sources on this smear campaign, but cite paywall protected sources that just state the smear, and not, as several articles do (2 cited above) check the details in contrary sources that argue Neuer and his group fabricated the smears. Neuer did not cite 'racist, hate-filled, antisemitis statement Falk actually made'. A strong case can be made from sources that his UN Watch doctored the evidence, (according to Human Rights Watch's own statements and according to a serious scholar, Phyllis Bennis, partisan yes, but held to higher standards of accuracy that any of the rubbish cited here), in order to make it look as though Falk was engaged in making a 'racist, hate-filled, antisemitis statement.' Both you and SJ have, by taking Neuer and UN Watch's trash at face value, arguably discredited your reliability as editors obliged to write to WP:NPOV standards, and you both are repeating WP:BLP remarks about Falk, which should, at this point, be reported. Even a beginner here is supposed to grasp the elementary rule that what a source reports about a person is not 'the truth' but a POV regarding that person, nothing more. To take a partisan smear as the truth is to attack, on these talk pages, a living person. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Neuer v. Falk stuff doesn't make Neuer any more notable apart from his role as leader of UN Watch. Neuer and UN Watch are parallel stories and should be merged. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

summary of wall of text: It would seem Neuer also has grounds to notabiliy via Falk and alleged antisemitism. Conversely we should redirect Falk to United Nations special rapporteur and likewise redirect all bios whose primary notability arises from an organization or position.Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to UN Watch, for lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A plausible search term, but not independently notable of the org. I’m only seeing mentions Neuer in the context of his activities for the group, as in “Hillel Neuer of UN Watch said…” “…commented…” “…wrote…” etc. The fact that he criticises a notable person does not help his own notability; not every critic of a notable figure is notable himself/herself, since notability is not inherited. In any case, the criticism from Neuer in his capacity as UNW executive. The scope and influence of the NGO in question is not such that we would presume notability for its director. Everything worth saying about Neuer can be said in the target article. Sources presented above, such as interviews – even if extensive, – are WP:SPIP and do not count towards notability.

Re: Users Shrike and Icewhiz link to a long interview with Neuer in the Canadian Jewish News, Hillel Neuer: Jewish eyes on the United Nations, and to a profile in the Jerusalem Post A Zionist at the United Nations – I reviewed these, and they are both interviews and not suitable for establishing notability. The other links offered by Icewhiz are passing mentions. “Being in the news” is not the same as “encyclopedically notable”; Neuer is not a celebrity. Even if he were, we’d need something else besides being a director at an NGO. On the balance of things, “Redirect” seems to be the best option here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to UN Watch: Not independently notable outside of his capacity as the UN Watch leader. There are primary, mainly UN Watch related sources, that gives the appearance of being "well sourced" or "enough WP:RS sourced in the article". That may be true ---BUT--- when the great majority are related to a single event, other than the subject but attributed to him or her, we end up masking that there is no independent notability which is not inherited. Otr500 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another source that asserts notability [13] --Shrike (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, another interview (primary source) that doesn't assert notability despite multiple attempts to change policy for this particular subject to say it does.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In all those interviews background is given.Such background is more then enough to satisfy WP:GNG.Also cite policy according to which interview is a primary source.The interview is leaded by the questions its not autobiography.--Shrike (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, though I doubt directly citing the policies will change your POV. WP:PRIMARY states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them"; WP:Interviews also writes: "There we have a specific definition requiring that others not connected with the subject take note and that they do so by offering their own secondary thoughts in reliable sources. Under this definition, anything the interviewee says about himself or herself or their own work is primary. If it's primary, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability". A few introductory sentences prior to the interview doesn't magically overrule our policies. And you do realize most, if not all, interviews are leaded by questions, correct?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEW is an essay and not policy.Again on what policy you base that interviews are primary source?Moreover in my opinion the introduction in long enough and give WP:DEPTH hence satisfy WP:GNG.Also please stop commenting about my POV as everyone have its own you including--Shrike (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence of WP:Interview:"This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies". According to WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, "Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way". Seriously, Shrike either you didn't read the opening statement of the page or you are falsely calling it an essay to gain leverage for your losing argument. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you if honesty continues to be an issue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then from your link "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary" I consider number of interviews and background given in each one sufficient to establish notability per our policy.--Shrike (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick, I provided below more than an interview or primary sources. Please take a look and judge for youself. Shalom11111 (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google can be helpful sometimes. Hereby, provided are even more secondary, notable and reliable sources, in addition to dozens mentioned before here and in the article. They cover Mr. Neuer, not just mention him, and refute the above arguments of 'K.e.coffman, TheGracefulSlick and others regarding lack of independent, secondary sources that don't just mention his as the head of the UN Watch. These include law university publications, news organizations and magazines, some are interviews and in others he is main subject. A man of international influence in the human rights realm, listed on annual lists of most powerful Jews on earth, given a "Hillel Neuer Day" in his honor in Chicago.

• "Hillel Neuer, Director of UN Watch". University of Michigan Law School. January 11, 2018. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
• "Hillel Neuer: Putin's bid for human rights cover". NY Daily News. October 20, 2017. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
• "Hillel Neuer: Meet the new UN human rights hypocrites. Same as the old ones". National Post. January 27, 2011. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
• "JUF News : Human rights activist Hillel C. Neuer to keynote Sept. 15 Jewish Federation Annual Meeting". JUF News. September 1, 2016. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
• Buergenthal, Thomas (February 27, 2017). "The Evolving International Human Rights System - American Journal of International Law". American Journal of International Law. 100 (4): 783–807. doi:10.1017/S0002930000031894. ISSN 0002-9300. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
• "Hillel Neuer on U.N. Commission of Inquiry". AIPAC. Retrieved January 11, 2018.

Remember, if you think one source is insufficient, it doesn't automatically imply the same about the rest, that is simply false logic. Stating that there's a WP:PRIMARY issue here has no grounds. While it is okay not to like this person (who dedicates all his time to fighting tyrannies as well raising awareness and improving lives globally!), not being neutral here because of that isn't. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to UN Watch – The person is not independently notable while independent notability is a requirement for a standalone article per WP:NBIO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But this is simply incorrect, I think you didn't read my comment (because you wrote yours in between the lines of mine, so I just moved it down here). Did you look at the article and all the sources provided, which show independent notability? Shalom11111 (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shalom11111: Yes I did. But I saw no quality source that would convince me that the guy is a sufficiently notable person outside of his organisation to warrant a Wikipedia article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We happen to have a source which explicitly affirms that UN Watch itself, and implicitly Neuer as its vociferous director, is not notable.

Most of the attacks are the result of pressure campaigns launched by a small Geneva-based right-wing organisation called UN Watch. While hardly known outside of UN headquarters in Geneva, UN Watch has tried to make a name for itself among those bigger players also committed to undermining the United Nations and to uncritically defending every Israeli violation of human rights and international law. Undermining and delegitimising Richard Falk has been an obsession of UN Watch since he became Special RapporteurPhyllis Bennis, 'Human Rights Watch: Time to stand with human rights defenders,' Al Jazeera 9 January 2013,

The Neuer page will only reduplicate the Un Watch page, noting all of the targets of Neuer's polemical venom, i.e. just one more WP:COATRACK article pleading the cause of the aggrieved.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Al Jazeera makes an attack of this kind, an apparent effort to denigrate Neur's notability and effectiveness, is yet another source supportive of his notability as a player in Israel vs. anti-Israel politics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani's POV-citation is irrelevant; that article is from over 5 years ago and so much has happened since, and his argument itself is simply invalid in its nature: It is clear it ignores Neuer's article and the additional information/links I provided above (which neither he nor TheGracefulSlick responded to) showing Neuer's notability goes way beyond being the executive director of said organization. Shalom11111 (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article today and the enormous amount of BLP material that has been brought up here on Hillel Neuer is different than what we had in the past (a year ago, the article was in a bad shape, I agree). It's okay to change one's mind, like Joefromrandb chose to do in the very beginning, and consider the all the new evidence and look at the article again. His writings, publications and coverage in the field of law and human rights would themselves justify his article as a notable author. Shalom11111 (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Shalom11111 I could respond to those links but it is just more of the same; heck you are even trying to pass off one of Neuer's own articles as a secondary source. At this point, I have to assume all the ignorance displayed toward our guidelines for notability and sourcing is intentional -- a bi-product of the subject and the POV that unfortunately cannot be shaken by the same usual editors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the article was written by Neuer, indeed, not intentional, but why not talk about the other five? I totally agree with your second sentence though. Maybe, for some users, Wikipedia guidelines simply don't matter nor does it matter how many media sources, from the left and right, from local to international, cite Hillel Neuer, interview him, write about him as the main subject; nor do dozens of books that quote him and talk about his activity, or the hundreds or publications he has written - as long as he hold a position in an organization that (among other things) fights bias at the UN for singling out and passing resolutions against Israel more than any other and in some cases all other countries of the world combined. It matters not that there are lists ranking him among the most influential individuals in law and or Jews globally, or that he is praised and even gets "Hillel Neuer Day" in his honor in a major American city - it will not change some minds. Sad but not surprising. Shalom11111 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources: Here is a 1998 essay by novelist Haim Chertok dedicated to taking issue with a Hillel Neuer article "Feisty and Contrary" ([https://search.proquest.com/news/docview/319217489/fulltext/2B58C2B6447843D8PQ/1?accountid=10226 AZURE: Ideas for the Jewish Nation, Winter 5758/l998, No. 3}. We might put more effort into sourcing the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Supplying missing link to source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We might put more effort into reading articles broadly around the issue. this is the second time you cite a source without a link, so we are supposed to take your word for it when there is no evidence you have read the source itself (The first case was 'Starting on p. 79, Falk details what he describes as Neuer's ongoing efforts'. I provided the link and 'starting' is wrong. Falk just mentions Neuer en passant). Editing like this replicates what UN WATCH does: creating a self-referential universe on its site, occasionally managing to blitz someone with lies or hyperbolic if not indeed paranoid inflation that lead the unwary to take them at their word and capture a blip in the 24/7 newscycle, which is then cited on their blog to underline how important they are. The more one looks into this, the sleazier the image of UN Watch: it witchhunts in McCarthyist fashion, as one can see, after the bizarre disinformation spread re Falk, it published all of Human Rights Watch's Kenneth Roth's twitter comments on the Gaza War, with Neuer stating things like: 'If anyone can identify any meaningful difference now between Hamas' social media feed and that of HRW director @kenroth, please let me know.' Hillel Neuer on Twitter July 20, 2014. This going-ballistic-discursive-overkill is perhaps why he is generally ignored in serious articles about the I/P conflict. By the way, you were wrong to take the article by Phyllis Bennis (9 books - innumerable articles, hence we have an article on her. How many books and articles has Neuer written?) as criticism by Al Jazeera. Her remarks there were a smaller version of what she wrote elsewhere:

Many of those attacks resulted from smear campaigns launched by UN Watch, a right-wing outfit in Geneva known for its anti-UN, anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel and anti-human rights agenda. It has attacked Richard many times before, but this time, sadly, it managed to influence none other than Ken Roth and the leadership of Human Rights Watch, despite a history of even attacking HRW itself. In response, a broad coalition of Palestinian, Israeli, U.S., and international human rights organizations mobilized in Richard’s defense; so far Human Rights Watch has yet to adequately respond. My al-Jazeera article, “Human Rights Watch: Time to Stand With Human Rights Defenders,” appeared a few days ago, noting how sad it is that HRW collapsed under the pressure even while its Middle East staff is doing such good work.' Phyllis Bennis It’s a New Year, But Old Wars and Occupations Continue Institute for Policy Studies 11 January 2013

I was originally wary of denying Neuer a page, - the sourcing at a lazy glance seemed ample. But the more I look into it, the stronger the impression that this is just another example of a raucously polemical POV-pushing lobby trying to get wiki space for its director as a noted critic of human rights abuse when he is just one of numerous people who go berserk at the least hint that Israel is not quite immaculate 'light unto the nations.' but rather more or less behaves historically as other colonial powers tend to do, if their bona fides is questioned.Both articles are essentially booster pieces with editors simply showcasing what the organization anjd its director are proud of, and how they see themselvesNishidani (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here: is a long profile of Neuer from his college alumni magazine: [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And here: is an article about Neuer by Moshe Ronen, with extensive quotations from Neuer that ran, presumably as an opinion column, in the [[Edmonton Journal] in 2007 UN rights agency can censor speech, but can't hide truth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, are you reading this stuff or just googling and plastering anything you come up with on this page, with dysfunctional links? The first link is against the UN Watch, not an independent source. The second link doesn't work, at least for me. I get a blank request for an article in Pro Quest. Have you ever thought that all putative independent sourcing goes back to what the UN Watch site does in self-promotion of its director? If so, there's no need for a separate page.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense on wheels, please WP:AGF. Of course I read articles that I reference, or cite. I used the link to UNWatch to reference that article, because it is an open source. The link to Proquest copy of the Edmonton Journal article works when I try it . and WP:HEY I added a handful of additional sources, facts to the page. A great deal more WP:RS information on Neuer exists, going back about two decades. Article on Neuer can ahd shoudl be expanded, it needs, for example an article on his work with Durban II, a subject (Neuer's involvement) on which plentiful sourcing exists. This, however, is a classic example of WPBLUDGEONING an Afd on an individual whose political commitments are uncongenial to Nishidani.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to WP:BLUDGEON, read the page and count our respective comments. At AfDs we have both commented on, you will recall, it is a policy associated with you, not myself, by third parties. To repeat, asserrtions that 'a great deal more WP:RS information on Neuer exists, going back about two decades,' are just that, and pointless if we are just sent to some UN Watch page. WP:AGF again, is, wrongly cited. I didn't mention editors here, I referred to my feeling that nothing UN Watch writes on human rights is credible because, though its comments on many tinpot dictatorships represented in the UN state the obvious, amply documented by serious Human Rights NGOs, they are unreadable because Neuer and UN Watch refuse to apply the same criteria to Israel's behavior as a belligerent occupant of another country, and therefore the moral outrage is hollow, and 'instrumental' (it means, in laymen's language: 'those bastards get away with it, so they have no right to criticize us for doing the same.' So I don't assume their putative 'human rights activism' obliges me to assume their good faith. Au contraire.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on "the subject" and notability: Neuer is a contributor/writer and not an author. Why is there confusion on this? Where are the peer reviewed publications and ISSN/ISBN numbers with him as the author and the Published works section in the article? Where are publications not associated with Neuer as "Director of UN Watch" or variations to show independence? Refbombing links that continually show the subject, through interviews, blogs, and press releases (etc...), always associated with UN WATCH, just muddy the waters and still points to person A (Neuer) has a relationship with well-known organization B (UN Watch). This BLP has become a battleground of the subject championing a cause when that is not relevant. He is NOT a renowned international lawyer but an individual that practiced international law. This is particularly important (concerning notability) if sourcing shows Lawyer A has a relationship with law firm B. This is acceptable content and sourcing in a BLP but there is nothing to show individual notability. Neuer is in a field with many thousands like the 16,000 member International Bar Association. His notability began and is solely associated with UN Watch. 1000 more interviews or press releases (etc...) that include "Director of UN Watch Hillel Neuer" (or variations) still point to UN Watch. There is too much politicizing his cause that is not the issue. Even the blog by Neuer The 10 most insane UN anti-Israel actions of 2017 states, "In response, UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer took the floor...". Otr500 (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)::::Here is a journal article from before he joined the NGO, [15], he is also quoted in other journals, and he also co-authored if I'm not mistaken a book on Canadian law or process. Regardless of all that, it is quite clear that Neuer is notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to UN Watch Not sure he is notable outside of this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just looking on Gbooks shows more that enough sources to show he passes GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

If the shameful decision to delete or redirect this page takes place, it is important to provide the following information for the record.

Nishidani is distracting the discussion from the issue, and violates the WP:IDONTKNOWIT rule, proved by completely off topics comments (and I quote him) ..."what UN WATCH does: creating a self-referential universe on its site, occasionally managing to blitz someone with lies or hyperbolic if not indeed paranoid inflation that lead the unwary"... And "concerns for the systematic injustices meted out to Palestinians over 50 years of military occupation", and ..."UN Watch refuse to apply the same criteria to Israel'"

How are these related to the discussion about Hillel Neuer's notability? They undoubtedly aren't.

Otr500's claims that all secondary sources cite Hillel Neuer as the UN Watch and nothing more have been debunked over and over (see below the collapsed info) but the user keeps repeating them. You can call him a writer if you prefer, not an author, and say there are thousands of other lawyers, it doesn't change a thing, his writings and coverage are way more than enough to justify his damn article.

The basis of the argument of those in favor of deleting or redirecting the page is the false notion that the man "is only referred to as the director of UN Watch" and that there are no secondary sources, so since all of you refused to look inside the sources provided, I will quote them and provide the text that refutes these claims.

Open the below content

And this is a partial list, it excludes tens of other sources that cover the man to lesser extent (NY Times and other media outlets, news appearances, books, articles in other languages which are an issue to cite here). We are witnessing the definition of Wikipedia censorship in full force. Shalom11111 (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that is (in effect) a PA accusing other users of trying to censor WP. No one is trying to remove all mention of him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. No user was mentioned in the last paragraph. See WP:BOOMERANG. The article has been deleted before with no discussion, is that in accordance with WP rules? Is that no censoring it? If you are "not sure he is notable outside of this" as you wrote, I kindly encourage you to take a glimpse over the sources. Shalom11111 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes threshold at WP:GNG. There are plenty of reliable sources independent of the subject that cover his life and work in sufficient detail. --Jayron32 15:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is a hastily run-up complete editing mess from self-referential sources, provincial newspapers, or some mainstream news outlets whose content just repeats the UN critic meme. WP:GNG reads: (A)If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list

Well, let's go through it systematically and see how it is sourced.

• This is not quite Winnepeg University, a conference which has left no mark on the Winnepeg U pages, apparently. It is a brief note introducing Neuer, who was to speak at a conference there in February 2007, and is just a reprint of his curriculum vita This bare CV source is used 5 times.
• [16] This is a primary source registration at the Chicago City Clerk’s office. If this gesture was noteworthy, rather than the mayor’s doing him a personal favour, where is the secondary source?
• Paul Lungen Hillel Neuer: Jewish eyes on the United Nations 10 January 2016 Canadian Jewish News An inrteerview which recaps everything that is repeated elsewehere. It has one notable quote we don't use.

I try to recall the tradition of Abraham, who was one of the world’s first non-conformists and at a time of idolatry, he spoke for the one God. That’s what I try to do here.

I don't know why the editor or Neuer didn't realize he was going public identifying Israel with God, and himself in the UN as an Abrahamic figure contesting idolatry of the Palestinians. Go figure.

• Baker, Amb. Alan (June 27, 2012). "The Demonization of Israel at the United Nations in Europe". Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs

This appears to be wrong attribution. The screed is an essay by Hillel Neuer, which begins with the usual hyperbole:

If an alien from another planet visited the United Nations and listened to its debates, read its resolutions, and walked its halls, the extraterritorial observer would logically conclude that a principal purpose of the world body is to censure a tiny country called Israel.

The type of hyperbole analysed by one of his sharpest critics, Scott Long

In the other corner: the appalling Neuer and his organization. “UN Watch” can be said to watch the UN (which certainly bears watching) only if I could be said to read the New York Times by doing the crossword puzzles obsessively and throwing the other 100+ pages away. Scott Long, Hillel Neuer: Liar. Mona Seif: Hero. a paper bird 3 May 2013

Neuer's UN Watch team screened 93,000 tweets by Mona Seif, an extraordinary human rights critic of Egypt's regimes, Israel's ally, and found just three they thought could be twisted to show she was a blood curdling anisemite, an imputation Long tears apart in great contextual detail. Please note that, this Neuer page has zero mentions of the many criticisms made of him, UN Watch and their smear tactics. Sheer boosterism. Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jewish Federation marks year of challenges and solutions at 116th Annual Meeting of Jewish United Fund Chicago News September 15 2016 Has one line on Neuer as having delivered a keynote address.
• (11) Edwards, Steven (31 March 2007). "UN's 'noble Dream' A Nightmare". National Post. This is a fudge: The link, sends you to Pro-Quest, when the article is online without that, but where? The Unwatch website.
• (12)Philologos (1 November 2013). "The Great Bagel Mystery Solved!". The Forward. This is a fudge again. The article is directly on line but the link directs us to Pro Quest for access. This is cited to ‘prove’ Neuer comes from Montreal, which is mentioned everywhere and the article just mentions him emailing the writer to explain the origin of the verb ‘to bagel’.
• (13) Arnold, Janice (4 June 2013). "Pro-Israel think tank CIJR marks 25th anniversary". Canadian Jewish News

The keynote speaker at the June 18 gala will be Hillel Neuer, the Montreal-born executive director of UN Watch in Geneva, Switzerland, which combats anti-Israel expressions made by the United Nations Human Rights Council.A former student of Krantz’s at Concordia’s Liberal Arts College, Neuer is one of a cadre of students trained at CIJR who have gone on to be effective advocates for Israel.Neuer, a McGill University law graduate, was editor of the CIJR student publication Dateline: Middle East. His writings today are published widely and he is a frequent commentator on major TV networks. On June 19, Neuer will speak at a CIJR cocktail reception in Toronto.

• (15) Paul,Weiss Represents Raytheon Company in Settlement of Merger Dispute With Hughes Electronics Company, Paulweiss.com. 2001-10-17. page not found not RS.
• (16) "Paul, Weiss Achieves Another Victory for the California Public Utilities Commission in PG&E Bankruptcy Case|News|Resources|Paul,Weiss,Rifkind,Wharton&Garrison LLP" page not found. not RS.
• (17)Ronen, Moshe (16 April 2007)"UN rights agency can censor speech, but can't hide truth; International community urged to condemn deplorable, corrupt organization". in the provincial Edmonton Journal which once more is not accessible unless you can get through Pro Quest
• (18) Australian Taxpayers' Alliance: The Rise and Fall of Human Rights at the UN". Atlas Network. August 24, 2015. Annoucement Neuer will talk to the Atlas Network, which is a free trade libertarian group, in September 2015. All it has is a resumé of his curriculum and puff quotes re his criticism of the UN
• (19) "holds NGO Activist Summit on Darfur (3/28/07)". UN Watch. (I get a 404 note)
• (20) Daniel Beaudoin is a retired Lieutenant colonel from the IDF Community: ’s Israel-Bashing Season Again At The U.N. The Forward December 11, 2017 just cites this:

“Sadly,” says Hillel Neuer, the director of UN Watch, “with members like China, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Venezuela and Qatar, the UNHRC today may possibly rank as a more corrupt international organization than FIFA.”

How does our editor spin that thin quote out. He writes:

Neuer has represented human rights victims in testimony before the UN Human Rights Council, a body which he highly criticized

which is classic WP:OR, totally unrelated to what Neuer states. (I must dine, will continue later) Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what just happened, for those who would understandably have a difficult time following the entire thread. I re-listed independent secondary sources that cover the man in question extensively in various ways, and the comment above dismissed them all by labeling them as "self-referential sources, provincial newspapers, or some mainstream news outlets whose content just repeats the UN critic meme" - and I ask, does anyone agree with this assertion, considering they're coming from a variety of places: From hard left magazine Mondoweiss, to academic Concordia University (and we've seen here that there are additional academics books talking about Hillel), to Zionist AIPAC and as well as the National Jpost. Instead, the comment then reviews trivial and insignificant sources from the article that were not in question right now (with some rather inaccurate information, such as that the JUF News site mentions the subject of discussion just once. Search for "Neuer", not Hillel, because he's referred to by his last name). Shalom11111 (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  I can see the point of discussing a merge, but this is something that should be proposed on the talk page.  This topic is a world-class figure, as shown by sources in the article that show the topic involved in California, Massachusetts, New York, Canada, Switzerland, and Israel.  This isn't a valid deletion nomination, because we know from the edit history that the nominator believed that the topic had merit as a redirect with its edit history, diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, amply passes GNG with articles in CNN, the Forward, Die Welt, Le Figaro, etc. While it's true that his name is often found next to the organization he heads, the same can be said for Ken Roth. Shall I hold my breath until the same people who nominated this article or want it redirected nominate that one as well? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The possibilities opened up by the redirect rationale (always mentioned in conjunction with the organization) are endless. We could redirect congressmen notable just for being congressmen to their congressional seat article. Many significant CEOs to their companies (if they were only in 1), and so on...Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not just for the preponderance of evidence, but also due to the relatively acceptable quality of the sources. Nonetheless, the article is clearly biased in favor of Hillel Neuer. This is a problem because Neuer is a controversial figure. The page merits a revision for WP:NPOV, but not a deletion.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A world class figure who's so notable that the main editor can document two events in 2007, and then a scatter of reports 2012, 2016 where or his UN Watch are repeating the same basic story. The UN Human Right Council is corrupt, hypccritical. We know that, but you don't become a distinguished figure by recycling the same story for what is it, 2 decades? The lead had the extraordinarty statement that

In 2016, the City of Chicago and Mayor Rahm Emanuel adopted a resolution declaring “Hillel Neuer Day”[10] recognizing "one of the world’s foremost human rights advocates,” and for his contributions to “promote peace, justice and human rights around the world.”

WP:Undue. A one-offer. Rahm Emanuel doing Hillel a favour declared one day in one year 2016 as ‘Hillel Neuer Day’ and it is spun out as if from that day, 15 September 2016, onwards Chicago will celebrate every 15 September as his day, which is not in the sources. Secondly, the two sources do not mention that Neuer was recognized as ‘one of the world’s foremost human rights advocates’, as implied. That phrase comes from Neuer’s own UN Watch site, quoting, apparently Rahm Emanuel's resolution. Claims like that need peer-proof, not matey puff at a minor provincial event.

Well. I see few if any are actually scrutinizing the quality of the sources, and are making judgements on numbers. So I'll continue trawling through them. This is a recap of 1-20 or so, which looks substantially like a Potemkin Village fudge. Briefly, this is the sort of coverage our article says this ‘world class figure’ is getting (1- :

• University of Winnipeg (advertisement for a talk). Zero content
• Canadian Jewish News Provincial community newspaper
• Registrary Office of Chicago’s Clerk (primary source, with a one line entry on Hilllel Neuer day)
• The Plain Dealer Provincial newspaper (Cleveland)
• Edmonton Journal Provincial newspaper from Canada.
• Yale UP. Wow! Yale University. Looks impressive. It's a dead link. Page not found
• Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Paul Weiss.com twice, both dead links. Page not found
• National Post A failed minor Canadian newspaper
• A hyper provincial newspaper from Needham Massachusetts
• No 31 This is falsely cited as 'Ryan, Steven (January 28, 2010). "Hillel Neuer receives apology letter". Needham Times. Retrieved January 11, 2018.' It is no such thing. It is from a certain Wicked Local.com in 2010 of a letter of apology from the Needham Mayor in 2008 for the Nov 2 2007 incident. A non RS provincial website in 2010, reprinting a brief 2 line letter of apology sent 2 years earlier?
• Atlas Network Not a news outlet. An annoucement by an economic lobby that Neuer will speak
• Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Provincial. No significant content.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't talking here about events so if WP:RS provincial or not doesn't really matter.Three interviews and background in it is more then enough to meet WP:GNG--Shrike (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With 37 revisions, and 26,267 bytes (or approx. 5,000 words), Nishidani treatise on the non-notability of Neuer is perhaps a further testament to the notability of Neuer.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he is one of the world's top legal minds, the greatest human rights advocate since Donald Duck as this puff piece puts over etc., then you would have scores of books, hundreds of articles and thousands of mainstream pieces on him. This is all trumpery editing: one minor incident in 2007 of his being momentarily caught up in a police roundup for a killer because a Pizza house reported him as a suspicious character, gets 5 separate sources, all of them regional notes, three of which are from negligible news sites. But the big thing is that five news outlets in the area, a tenth of those used for the article, noted he was wrongly arrested and apologized to for a contretemps on 2 November 2007. Big time.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (21) travesty; There wasn't much horn-blowing this month to mark the 10th anniversary of the United Nations' Human Rights Council". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 28 March 2016.

Again via Pro-Quest when the same article is easily available. The same sourcing ineptness.

If you look at it, it’s another plant from UN Watch, a couple of paragraphs with the refrain Neuer repeated that year

Today's members — including Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and China — don't exactly rise to that challenge. But they'll aggressively defend their own abysmal records while focusing inordinate attention on the primary target of their disdain: Israel.

°(22) Frida Ghitis (5 July 2010). [ "The Human Rights Council is a tragic joke".] Cleveland Plain Dealer. Again, it appears that any time the UN Human Rights Council is mentioned, Hillel Neuer is cited by a provincial news outlet. Worse still, it was originally written for the Miami Herald, and is best known because it is, like everything else here, conserved on the UN Watch website. Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (23) Yonette Joseph "After Making Mugabe a 'Good-Will Ambassador,' W.H.O. Chief Is 'Rethinking' It". (May 7, 2016). The New York Times.

Finally the New York Times ! Which tells us Neuer on Twitter and at the UNWatch site did what several other NGOs did, condemn Mugabe’s appointment (like tens of thousands of astonished people).Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (24) Tom Wright (June 19, 2006). "Homepage - International Herald Tribune". The New York Times.

Again the title is not that. All we get is, in a report of Kofi Aannan’s remarks on the new Council, Neuer chipping in saying he hoped it would improve, but wasn’t optimistic (2006)Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (25) Warren Hoge "Dismay Over New U.N. Human Rights Council". The New York Times. (March 11, 2007).

Back to his annus mirabilis 2007, when he is on a list of sceptics re the UN HR COUNCIL, starting with Kenneth Roth, Nicholas Burns of state for political affairs), Ban Ki-moon, Amnesty's Peter Splinter and Mark Lagon, again quoted for one of the two memes he is famous for.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (26) dealt with above. Yale UP annoucement. Page not found. Dead link
• (27-31) 5 articles from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Needham Times relate just 1 trivial incident of Neuer being briefly mistaken in a pizza hut for a suspect in a local murder on 2 November 2007, again in the annus mirabilis 2007.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I disagree with his disparaging comments about some of the news sources, the core of what Nishidani wrote is correct. The puffery about Neuer is unsourced. The section about his "human rights advocacy" and legal career fails verification. What else in this article will fail to hold up to scrutiny? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Deletion_is_not_cleanup--Shrike (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, which is why editors should stop trying to polish this turd and we should delete it. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite convinced he doesn't deserve a wiki page. But I think automatic pro and con, without carefully looking at how a page like this is constructed, is useless. Regularly quoted by Le Figuro turns out to be proven by two links, one which suggests in the distant past he was briefly cited in three articles, and one with the comment:'Pour le directeur de UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, les élections automatiques, faute de concurrence, «prêtent une crédibilité internationale à des gouvernements répressifs qui violent systématiquement les droits de leurs propres citoyens».' That is exactly what Neuer says a thousand times, trawling through the record, the language is always the same, the theme identical. The sourcing is pathetic. If on the other hand, a capable editor wrote it using RS that cover his life, then you might get an acceptable 2 section short wiki bio that would be neutral and pass muster. All we have is a puff page that is identical in content to UN Watch.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a keep then. Couldn't you say that in one short paragraph rather than BLUDGEON all over this page? (btw re this, that would be 20 comments by you vs 10 by E.M.Gregory. 2:1 in your favor and you apparently are not done yet. Amusing). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The article as it stands is trash, which doesn't exclude that an article on Neuer might find a place here, if it attracted competent editors. As Shabazz says, retain this crap and we are just turd-polishing. More evidence of incompetence:

He is regularly quoted by major media outlets including the Jerusalem Post,[38][39] New York Times,[24] Al Jazeera,[40] Die Welt,[41] Le Figaro,[42][43] Reuters,[44] Al Ahram,[45] and CNN (notes 38-46 -8 sources for more than a decade of intense media work)

(a)The word regularly is WP:OR. One cite from the Jerusalem Post is reduplicated by quoting as an example the same ref (38-39) (b) the New Times is cited once, (c) Al Jazeera yields one quote (d) die Welt one quote, the editor makes a mistake dating this posthumously to 2015 when the date was May 13, 2010. The comment is tediously the endless meme ('Eine Gruppe von 37 Menschenrechtsgruppen hatte Libyen und Gaddafi schwere Vergehen vorgeworfen und schwere Schäden für das UN-Gremium gesehen. „Bei der Wahl eines Landes, das ständig die Menschenrechte verletzt, verletzen die Vereinten Nationen ihre eigenen Werte, ihre eigene Logik und ihre eigene Moral“, sagte UN-Watch-Chef Hillel Neuer.) (e) no 42 sends us to LeFigaro archives where one assumes he may have been cited 3 times,

• Actually the first quotes Un Watch, and just cites a Twitter quip by Neuer mocking Iran (2017).
• The second quotes UN Watch, and its director’s quip re North Korea.(2011);
• The third turns out to be exactly the same article cited in the following note 43, again shuffling reduplication to create the instantaneous impression of multiple citations. (cf.38-39 are the same article from Jerusalem Post)
• 43 gives us one example from the same.
• Reuters quotes him once.
• 44 Al Ahram has a dead link, and is indeterminate, like several other sources. *45 CNN one cite.

So again, fudging the evidence.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. the language suggests each of those venues cite Neuer regularly, whereas each named has one example, save for Le Figaro which cites him 3 times over a decade, with the editor reduplicating one of those cites to give the impression he is regularly cited 4 times.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what passes for verification in your world, you really shouldn't be participating in these discussions per CIR. For example Reuters regularly quotes him - [17], as does CNN - [18] on various issues relating the the UN and not necessarily Israel, or is over a dozen quotes not regular enough for you? The fact there's only one example in the article is not "fudging the evidence" (that's a personal attack as you know). Quit the BLUDGEONing and let people less emotionally invested in removing this article judge the evidence for themselves. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you were being misleading in another respect. The article says that he is "regularly quoted" by "media outlets", not that each one of them quotes him regularly (although they do). Also, contrary to your claim, Al Figaro quoted him more than 3 times - [19]. Here's another couple dozen from Haaretz [20] and the Jerusalem Post [21] just for good measure. We are now at what, 50+ quotes in 5 major media outlets? I think that in itself is enough for GNG? It's a shame your BLUDGEONing will probably prevent most neutral editors from reading this far into the discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.'He is regularly quoted by major media outlets.' In English and its logic, if you make a generalization of this kind, 'regularly quoted' applies to all of the named media outlets that follow. Perhaps those who write are unaware of the implications of their prose, but that is what is implied. It's careless.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I verified the text, no one else voting here did, and the editors made a total mess of it. Now you come round and say I failed to independently research the subject. I.e. rather than go to the root cause of this fuckup, and note that the editors of the page failed to do their homework, you attack the person who redpenciled their hackwork. It's not my remit to get interested in this kind of stuff, other than, having written some 700 articles, to indicate from experience what's wrong with stuff like this. When you reduplicate sources, you are fudging the evidence in normal English. If you want to redeem the article, do some work for once. As it stands it is not up to stub standards. And drop the 'emotionally invested'. If you want to understand what that means read Hillel Neuer's several hyperbolically intemperate character assassination pieces on decent people, which the article ignores. No trace of rational evaluation of evidence. Naomi Klein is Joseph Goebbels, Richard Falk is an anti-Semite, etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing above is a BLP violation. Not the first on this page I may add, although you regularly chide other editors for less egregious stuff.

You didn't "verify the text", you searched for superficial flaws and didn't even do a modicum of verification. If you had tried to verify, you wouldn't have said La Figaro only quoted him 3 times, because that's easily verified to be false. You said Reuters quoted him once. That's false. etc.etc.etc. You are not just "indicate[ing] from experience what's wrong with stuff like this". You have made over 20 comments in this discussion. You have posted by far the most amount of verbiage. You obviously don't like the subject of this article. Stop BLUDGEONING.

Now that we have actually verified the text, we know he is indeed regularly (as in dozens of times across a wide spectrum of publications) quoted in various media outlets, which in itself would put him past the GNG threshold. Put your POV aside and admit that, and move on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We?Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 10:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CookstownCash presented by Comco Canada Inc.[edit]

CookstownCash presented by Comco Canada Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unimportant curling event. Fails WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:DIVERSE. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event is part of the World Curling Tour, which is the highest level of competitive curling in the world. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Earl Andrew: this isn't separate tournament, it's part of tour. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge it into the article about the tour. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Standalone articles on tour events are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia if they are in the highest level of that sport. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the reason stated by Earl Andrew, the winners (and many participants of the event) are notable per WP:NCURL and have participated in events held by the World Curling Federation and Canadian Curling Association, the two most important curling associations in the world. (One of those teams will be participating in the upcoming Winter Olympics). World Curling Tour rankings are also important in determining participation in world championship and Olympic qualifying events. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree also with Earl Andrew. Also, the event is a section on the World Curling Tour. Article needs to be kept. Lacypaperclip (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Earl Andrew. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Friendly People. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 10:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense / Guttermouth[edit]

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

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

Nothing to indicate claimed or sourced, that this is notable music release. Mattg82 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Could conceivably be redirected to Friendly People, with a note on that album's article stating that the track "Veggicide" is a re-recording of the band's first single, issued as a split 7" with the band Nonsense. Nothing to indicate that this single is notable enough by itself to pass WP:SONG. Richard3120 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Isochrone map. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isodapane[edit]

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

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

Longstanding unreferenced article which looks like a classic case of WP:NOTDIC. Mattg82 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rationale as per nominator. Cannot find anything other than brief definitions of the term on Google. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the related concept of Isochrone map Billhpike (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Isochrone map. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Page Speedy Deleted at authors request. Amortias (T)(C) 20:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digiteck Ltd[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. No sources establishing notability found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• GeoffreyT2000, Hello mate! Aren't the 'sources' you are referring to are the only ones that exists online? There are plenty of places which are highly notable and they are used as landmarks and public attractions but are not there on wikipedia cause not everything is found online and only 47% of world is using internet. [22] As this is a company, a different approach should be taken to judge the notability. This article however needs editing as upon some google(ing), I found a report that claims that all the major firms like City Councils, NHS, Costa Coffee and a further big list uses this company which according to me would be a major cite. Rambo Macho (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all sources need to be online/Internet sources. Books and other local publications can also be used, if appropriately cited. --Chris (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rambo Macho: Links to the sources you found would be much appreciated (and consider that per WP:GNG we need more than casual mentions and appearances in indexes/directories to establish notability). The article, as it stands has next to no useful information. For example, I couldn't even figure out what the company does without searching the web. Daß Wölf 01:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with speedy delete. I requested such under A7 / G11; let's see if it takes. Completely promotional and non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete non notable. artspam. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nom, non notable company, fails GNG, references fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racing Dynamics[edit]

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

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

No evidence of this car tuning company's notability. It therefore seems that it is a WP:PROMO article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional article with primary sources as its only references. No notability established. Ajf773 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article describes a firm going about its business. Those basics are confirmed by online searches, but I see nothing to indicate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:ORG, primary source and promotional content. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - MrX 18:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ped Chern-yim[edit]

Ped Chern-yim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cited sources are dead ends or routine coverage. A search for other sources revealed nothing useful for demonstrating notability. - MrX 21:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Major figure in the Thai entertainment industry, has been covered by plenty of news sources, e.g. ASTV Manager, Khao Sod and the @ Mo-Chit TV show (recap on Kapook). --Paul_012 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is co-founder of one of the best known Thai comedian groups. Thai Rath (Thailand number one newspaper) has regular coverage: [23] Searching in Daily News website (Thailand number two newspaper) [24] also found 72 matches. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mihaela Noroc[edit]

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

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

Her book is clearly notable, but there is no any information about her without connection to the book. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly the book meets WP:NBOOK, however, as nom notes the author does not necessarily follow. There are not sufficient, in-depth, biographical sources to establish GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barozzi family[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no referencing, and I was unable to find anything on subject. Lee Vilenski(talk) 21:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)===Barozzi family===[reply]

• Deleteper nom can find no sources to back up any of this poorly written content. Theroadislong (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article is much improved and referenced now. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Poorly written indeed, a hopeless machine-translation from a very weak page on it.wp. But they are clearly notable, a major Venetian aristocratic family, Treccani Enciclopedia Italiana article here. The most notable member appears to be the mathematician Francesco Barozzi (Dizionario biografico degli italiani article here), whose collection of ancient manuscripts is now the Codex Baroccianus of the Bodleian Library; his nephew Iacopo (Dizionario biografico article here) added to that collection before he sold it. Other members include the clerics Pietro (article here), Giovanni (article here), Angelo (article here), various lords of Santorini (articles here, here, here and here), and Elena, famous beauty and mistress of Lorenzino de' Medici (see this source on Vasari). Despite the claim made by our French colleagues, I don't immediately see any evidence that Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola came from this family. I'll rewrite this if the page is kept (or I might even start sooner). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is a fairly typical list article. It might have been called Barozzi (surname). We do not allow categorisation by shared surname, but we do allow lists. This article has sources, most of which are references to the Italian Dictionary of National Biography, inclusion in which will make the subject automatically notable. The number of blue links also points to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is notable, as one of the Venetian patrician families, which played a role in the artistic, political, and religious affairs of Venice and its possessions in insular Greece. Definitely has room for improvement, though. --Constantine ✍ 19:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with room for improvement.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination Withdrawn - I can see that there has been an overhaul of the article, and so the AfD has been withdrawn. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Explanation can be found at the bottom of the discussion. (non-admin closure) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Nine Inch Nails[edit]

List of songs recorded by Nine Inch Nails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Even though WP:NOT, and other policies allow lists, this list is not necessary as we already have Nine Inch Nails, and Nine Inch Nails discography. Basically, this is a fork of discography article. Everything from this article can be explained in the discography article. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A10; doesn't expand on the existing articles. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentKeep. See Category:Lists of songs by American recording artists. These are pretty standard lists. Ajf773 (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on Nine Inch Nails.Vorbee (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since spotting this AfD I have joined all the tables into one sortable table, and dab'd the song articles. This is the only place on WP you'll find this information supplied together in one place. Now for the other stuff exists argument, there are nearly 500 Lists of songs recorded by ... and Nine Inch Nails have had 8 albums, 4 EPs and countless other releases (one track on a soundtrack album etc.). - (if they had been a one-hit wonder I'd would have been with the merge/delete opinions) Finally, because of size, the merge suggestion doesn't work. NB Not saying more work couldn't be done on this and other lists (songwriters, producers, musicians, recording studio etc), but WP is a work In progress. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see a problem with the list as it has been updated by Richhoncho, and it is too long to merge with the main Nine Inch Nails article or the discography article. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn Honestly speaking, I wasn't aware about Category:Lists of songs by American recording artists. Users @Ajf773, Richhoncho, and Rlendog: make a good point. I apologise for the mess. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Cherry[edit]

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

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

Looks like promotional article. I browsed thru the references - most of them of PR origin. Fails WP:GNG from my POV. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - searching for info about him doesn't pop up much that isn't directly connected to BrainStyles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm having the same issue Sarek is and can't locate anything that would meaningfully save this from the axe. Having patents does not make one notable since anyone can get one. Chetsford (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 10:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Clarity Group[edit]

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

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

Company fails WP:NCORP as the coverage is all brief mentions or from unreliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as inambiguous advertising; also possibly A7 for lack of significance. WP:TNT is also applicable as self-cited original research and advocacy. I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of fictional spacecraft as a compromise, since several entries in the list are already at the target. Properly sourced content can be merged if desired. ansh666 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transformers spacecraft[edit]

List of Transformers spacecraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Complete and total fancruft. The references are either primary sources or give no indication the information is relevant to non fans. A large portion is also WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of fictional spacecraft. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of fictional spacecraft, because that's what it's all about. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything to merge that proves any societal impact from any of these, though? It seems that it is entirely just fancruft and would be unsuitable for merging._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that not even a redirect should be preserved? Raymond3023 (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it has material worth preserving. Otherwise you are simply inviting it to be recreated by aspiring fancruft writers. Besides, usually that info is in the relevant Wikia if it's even a somewhat major piece of media._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have changed the vote now to delete now, its just going to become a fancruft. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - They are notable as a group, and the list provides a convenient place to include information on spacecraft that are not independently notable. Better to have this as a quick reference than to repeat all the relevant information on every article that mentions a ship. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of fictional spacecraft. Concerns about cruft-attracting are more likely to be validated with a redlink than a redirect. Wikipedia is not paper; that doesn't mean we need a 5000-character article on every fictional thing but it doesn't mean "it's on Wikia" is a good reason not to at least mention it in the encyclopedia that is supposed to be the sum total of human knowledge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a redlink, an article can be speedy deleted if the content isn't substantially different/improved, and salted if the article is deleted once again. With a redirect there is nothing to do but bring it to AfD... again... if the article is still cruft. A redlink is preferable for that reason. Redirects should be used if there is valuable info worth preserving (read: not cruft)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no redirect required. Ifnord (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GNG is met, no need for a merger. I'm puzzled by the delete !votes, and would encourage those expressing them to clarify their policy basis. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea where you get "GNG is met" from this. The sources are primary, not secondary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wired is a primary source for Transformers? Remember, the presence of primary sources doesn't invalidate the RS'es that are present in an article. As long as there are 2-3 independent RS'es that cover the subject, GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete because an article exists which covers this subject. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JClemens has misinterpreted the GNG. It's not enough that secondary sources talk about it, but it has to get significant mentions in secondary sources. The Wired article merely has a few sentences about each Transformer. Still fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are almost enough links for this to be a WP:SAL, and there's some sourcing (beyond the implicit sourcing to the named works) for entries that aren't notable enough for stand-alone pages. The page also doesn't seem to have WP:UNDUE detail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But how the article is worth preserving? You should acknowledge that this is a fancruft and not really going to become any better. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTPLOT, content is only in-universe plot summaries, nothing about the impact of these fictional elements on the real world. Sandstein 09:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sandstein. Years ago we would've transwiki'd this to Wikia, but I would be surprised if this weren't already there in far greater detail. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked but you made a good point there. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  From reading the first AfD, this list was in part a decision reached to handle articles on individual transformers deemed non-notable, and WP:PRESERVE is an important policy, else we would be treating our content contributers with disrespect.  The NOTPLOT issue was raised at the previous AfD.  It isn't on its face an issue since a plot, as per Google's definition 2 is, "the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence," so at one level this is not an article about an interrelated sequence of events, so there is no plot whatsoever.  And it is not the case that the list entries dwell on fictional aspects or violates MOS:INUNIVERSE, and completely removing the fictional relevance would be counter-productive.  As mentioned at the previous AfD there is real-world crossover here looking at toys, comics, and animated series.  I don't have an opinion about merging, as this is a decision for the content contributors, but if the article is merged, there should be no prejudice to continued improvements to the encyclopedia, which includes an unmerge.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect without merging to List of fictional spacecraft. The main question here IMO is whether LISTN is met, and it is not. The cites that meet RS do not discuss the topic of spacecraft in the franchise, specifically. The article's content is unneeded cruft that is not worth merging. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per James above, WP:LISTN is not met. The sources in the article discuss various individual craft/robots from the article in detail, but not as a group. I couldn't find any LISTN-satisfying references by Googling. Daß Wölf 01:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments and apparent lack of consensus. The page is informative for readers researching the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN is not met here. List of fictional spacecraft exists, which is why the article becomes more redundant. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:NOTPLOT, as indicated by Sandstein. On a more detailed analysis, some of the information cited in the article could possibly be added to other articles pertaining to the subject (Transformers), but the vast majority of the article is un-sourced and unnecessary. Fans of Transformers interested in this peculiar topic should either look at a specific Transformers-Wiki page or, better yet, support their franchise by purchasing specialized books on the subject. Additionally, it's important to point out that just listing books in the bibliography is not enough proof of notability; specific citations from the books should also be present in the article.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as per James. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Kudo[edit]

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

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

A 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, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Oregon–Western Oregon football rivalry[edit]

Southern Oregon–Western Oregon football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another creation of same editor. Both citations are currently dead, official site and CFB scores DB. Establishment of games results alone from a series is not sufficient for WP:GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think there are any Wikipedia articles about NAIA football rivalries, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't. I'm inclined to give this one a chance due to the history. Not ready to take a position just yet, want to see some more research. As it stands now, it doesn't look like the article itself supports WP:GNG but there likely is a good amount of offline historical sources that could be drummed up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet notability guidelines and significant RS coverage not found. Basically, fancruft and trivia. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My searches (limited to on-line sources) did not turn up any significant coverage, let alone in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. The coverage is the key, but I find it telling as an aside that nobody has even bothered to create an article on the Western Oregon football program, and the overall article on the Western Oregon Wolves doesn't even discuss the football program. If the Western Oregon football program isn't important enough to motivate anyone to create a stand-alone article (or even a sentence discussion in the overall program article), then it's very doubtful that its "rivalry" with Southern Oregon warrants a stand-alone article. If examples of significant coverage were to be provided, I would consider changing my vote. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hardie[edit]

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

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

Non-notable engineer. Claim to fame is working on the Challenger and Columbia shuttles - the same as thousands of others. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The National Latina/o Psychological Association[edit]

The National Latina/o Psychological Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable group of academics with no significant coverage found. Article was created, maintained, and deprodded by now-blocked massive sockpuppet ring. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- any marginal notability is outweighed by the fact that the article was created by a promotional sock farm; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PajamaParty1980/Archive. Violates TOU and created with a promotional intent. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waliur Rahman[edit]

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

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

No sources found or provided that show subject meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BAND. Significant cruft cleaned up. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. MT Train^Discuss 16:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wishnatsky[edit]

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

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

This subject fails WP:GNG. The subject has no notability other than being the lawyer of a famous person - and notability isn't inherited. Additionally, the sources listed are actually only two sources, as one is triplicated. Kbabej (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As the subject of Kayla Moore’s remarks, he is tangentially related to Moore’s loss in the recent election. And as far as sources go, there are others out there, I just thought the information irrelevant but others might use them to discuss his anti abortion activities. I am sure there will be more to be said about him in the near future.Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Postcard Cathy! Am I to assume you are voting keep then? In that case, you would want to add "Keep" in bold with a bullet point before your above statement. The format for voting keep or delete, etc, looks like this. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominated, I was able to find a few news sources from such as CNN, New York News Daily, The Washington Post, all except the last, mention him breifly. Only the Washington Post has anything in-depth about him. I would prefer to see more in-depth news sources about him. I would also it would fail WP:BIO due to the fact none of them really cover him in depth besides Washington Post. Even though he has been mentioned in multiple news sources does not make him notable, seeing as how any information from the news articles are pretty much interviews on his beliefs, and a little about him. I also was looking at the Washington Post article, here, certain parts of the Biography section look like they came from the Washington Post article pretty much, but not a direct copvio. Since he was involved in abortion protests that might fail WP:BIO1E since one events are generally not notable within themselves. As to per the loss of the election I wasn't really able to find anything about that. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if anything merge into the article about Roy Moores sexual allegations if anything.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable solution. Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- fails WP:BLP as notable for one event only.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Kimmel[edit]

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

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

No references, can't find any RS on Google. I think the subject fails WP:MUSICBIO (I couldn't find her on any charts and I don't think she's signed with a major label, but I could be wrong on these points) AdA&D 16:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. When I first came across this article I too did some research in an attempt to verify some of the claims made. According to the sources I found she's one of the most prolific songwriters in Hollywood, but I could not find a single RS that verified any specifics (other than writing a song for Veeram, though the only links I can find are for the trailer itself and not the film). Everything else is a Wikipedia mirror or just a vague "she's written songs for X, Y, and Z shows". Willing to be convinced otherwise, but I just don't see it right now. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Asansol#Transport. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Asansol[edit]

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

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

Article which duplicates material already in Asansol#Transport. Although bits of the article are sourced, the sources do not cover the overall subject of transport in Asanol. Fails WP:CONTENTFORK and possibly WP:GNG. - MrX 15:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Asansol#Transport. Ajf773 (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge under Asansol. MT Train^Discuss 14:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Asansol#Transport. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 10:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Del Rey[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability. Links to two apparently non-notable films (redlinks). Only reference is to IMDb. The editor who deprodded said "starring roles in long-running TV series strongly suggests sufficient notability" but I can't see the evidence of "starring roles in long-running TV series" and nothing is obvious from a Google search. David Biddulph (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While IMDB is not by our standards a 'reliable source', it shows Del Ray appearing in 77 episodes of La pecera de Eva, 6 episodes of Muñecas, and 263 episodes of Acacias 38, in which she is listed first in the cast. I believe that justifies more investigation. --Michig (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course I'll be happy with further investigation. At first glance none of the series which you mention have been considered notable, but if reliable sources can be found to demonstrate that the subject satifies WP:NACTOR or otherwise satisfies WP:GNG then of course there would be a case to retain the article. The original creator of the article didn't mention any of those series, but this may be another demonstration that the editor concerned has a lot to learn. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Most TV series with any sort of significant run are considered notable. The fact that we don't have articles on them, given that these are Spanish TV dramas, is not an indication that they are not notable. --Michig (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Wikipedia guidelines are that all articles need to be verified. That means having reliable sources, which IMDb is not. Beyond that, we have especially strong guidelines for biographies of living people. This person is a living person. There are no sources at all. We should delete the article with speed. There is no evidence that the film and TV show are notable. There is no evidence on them at all. Beyond that, it is unclear that Del Rey had in any way significant roles in either performance, since we have no reliable sourcing at all. Unless we have reliable sourcing, we should not create such empty biographies of people, especially living people. Wikipedia has a horrible problem of biographies sourced only to IMDb, and little evidence that this situation is going to improve. We cannot keep such non-sourced biographies on living people. It is just not justifiable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• How predictable. Poorly sourced article, so Mr Lambert chips in with his usual rant about IMDB, and decides it must be deleted irrespective of notability. This is really getting beyond disruptive. --Michig (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hear Hear! johnpacklambert has a hard on for IMDB for some reason; it's not been banned as a reliable Wikipedia source last I checked.Rsarlls (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has clearly had significant roles in major TV series, and is clearly a celebrity in Spain. --Michig (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone here edit in Spanish? Spanish Wikipedia has an article about her, and about her TV series, but needs a redirect from "Anita del Rey" ( a red link in Acacias 38) to her article. It would be helpful to create that redirect but I'm not familiar with editing on Spanish wiki. I've just created the corresponding redirect here on English wiki. PamD 10:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't speak Spanish but I think es:Anita del Rey, which I've just created, has done the trick. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• David Biddulph, just curious, as you AfD'd this article why did you create an article of the same topic in another language WP? --Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not do so, @Oakshade:. If you look, you'll see that I merely created the redirect from es:Anita del Rey to the already existing article es:Ana del Rey. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha. --Oakshade (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There now appear to be several acceptable sources.--Ipigott (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of the stars of multiple notional television shows. Sources found (not surprisingly) demonstrate passing notability guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources have been added, she meets WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor 10:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A quick google search yielded many RS on del Rey. Sources added demonstrate notability. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I can't speak Spanish at all, from the article I regard it both verifiable and notable, since she played major roles in some notable Spanish television shows.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources are enough. Kenny34568 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has plenty of sources. Subject has played major roles in several notable Spanish television shows. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Quinn[edit]

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

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

This individual is a British actress who does not seem to meet WP:GNG. She seems to be a different person from the American journalist and video host. I could only find mention of her in social media. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- actress of little note, nothing worthy of WP in her resume. Jefstevens (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she has been interviewed in UK Film Review and has won a best actress award. (Side note: there appears to be a third Katie Quinn born in UK circa 1993 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6093944/).Jonpatterns (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage found on net on independent reliable source - fails WP:NACTOR. award is only on primary source. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sportlineng (website)[edit]

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

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

Completely non notable website that fails all criteria of inclusion in encyclopedia. It contains two references, one is from the website and the remaining one is user-generated Nigerian chatting blog. No other sources can be found about this website thus failing WP:GNG and no any verifiable claim that can make it better than the rest, thus failing WP:NWEB. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 12:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator's rationale. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discounting the IPs, we have no consensus about notability, but agreement that if kept this needs a rewrite. Sandstein 18:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Raymond Boulle[edit]

Jean-Raymond Boulle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I see nothing in the references that look like references about this plutocrat: they all seem to refer to his companies or their staggeringly vulgar ptoducts. TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a run-of-the mill metals trader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the references are insufficient, what tips this over the edge is the COI and promotionalism concerns I have here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- about 90% of the article is about various businessess as in:

• "In March 2016, the Jean Boulle Luxury Group announced the launch of its patent-pending, proprietary Sun King diamond compound for luxury finishes, and confirmed the delivery of the first car with this finish.[36][37]"

The rest of the article is pretty much the same. This is not a bio page, but a business page, and notability is not inherited. So, delete, for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject matter is clearly notable as already pointed out by various editors and as any objective reader will see when the citations are read and researched. To take two examples: The discovery of Voisey’s bay Mine as founding shareholder of Diamond Fields Resources has had an historical impact on mining in Canada. The discovery of a new heart valve as founding shareholder of Tendyne is a historical first in medical science.

The subject matter appears to have worked through many companies founded to become notable and, objectively, there is nothing unusual or ‘promotional’ about this and it should not be held against the article. Companies, as the building blocks of society, enable individuals to achieve notability and are therefore, to a certain extent, inseparable from their founder-owners.

Conversely, what could be construed as commercial and therefore possibly “promotional” are the specific lines below which despite being factual (after checking) have too many press release type references and these need to be rewritten and corrected: “In March 2016, the Jean Boulle Luxury Group announced the launch of its patent-pending, proprietary Sun King diamond compound for luxury finishes, and confirmed the delivery of the first car with this finish.[36][37] In March 2017, the Jean Boulle Luxury Group announced that its patent-pending Sun KingTluxury diamond finish technology had been used in a paint exhibited on a Rolls-Royce Ghost Elegance (EWB) at the 2017 Geneva Motor Show.[38][39][40] In April 2017, the Luxury Group announced that the technology had been applied to a classic Pininfarina-styled Bentley, the Bentley Azure exhibited at the Top Marques Monaco Super Car show.[41][42][43] On 11 May 2017, the group signed an agreement with AkzoNobel for the production of its aviation grade Sun King Diamond Coating for the private and commercial jet markets.[44][45] On 22 May 2017, the group launched the world’s first aircraft finished with Sun King diamond coating (produced by AkzoNobel in Holland) at EBACE 2017 in Geneva, the first to be covered in natural gem diamonds onto an ultra long-range Bombardier Aerospace Global Express.[46][47][48] ”

If we assume ALL of these lines to be too commercial, or possibly to be “promotional” (which is not a given as some references are from such entities as Forbes) then they would represent 172 words out of 1074 words in the article (excluding references, which are not counted) or 16 Percent of the article. It is therefore inaccurate and clearly an exaggeration to classify 90% of the article as being “promotional”.

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adastra_Minerals — 197.226.59.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The context that gave rise to the deletion notice is that the BLP was characterised as:

(i) a run-of-the mill metals trader. (ii) a Plutocrat. (iii) having 'staggeringly vulgar products'.

But the BLP

(i) is not a 'run-of-the mill metals trader' and is notable, given the strong quality of the BLP related sources including those cited as I have argued and which has subsequently been confirmed.

(ii) A Plutocrat is not an objective word with hints of COI and is in and of itself a BLP violation (The Wikipedia Guidelines also apply to discussion pages). In addition, I think there's no source saying that he's one and that makes the ‘plutocrat’ argument doubly invalid.

(iii) "staggeringly vulgar products" cannot be used as a basis for a deletion notice. The editor concerned did not and has not provided a source nor details for what appears to be a subjective and personal pronouncement.

The basis on which the deletion notice was created therefore (with the leitmotif "'run of the mill'" or "'normal'") was anything but 'run of the mill' or 'normal' because there was no rational foundation for the deletion notice and they are not based on rational facts per (i) - (iii) above or are a clear BLP violation.

In addition, there were factually very strong indications of COI in the deletion process when concerted votes by fake accounts came to light and were blocked. 197.226.59.60 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The current article is an excessively promotional hagiography. There are enough good sources out there to pass WP:GNG, such as this Forbes article, 1998. At present WP:TNT seems the best option. Edwardx (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the basis and the reason we are voting here is that Wikipedia articles should be judged on their notability and not the condition as per WP:NOTCLEANUP, which is an equally valid argument. The fact that you support that it clearly passes WP:GNG is an even more solid argument as to why it should be kept, to be edited by you or any other editor who feels like something shouldnt be there as it is. WP:BOLD applies. 197.226.59.60 (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, researching the article, I'm pretty sure you are a regular contributor with a fairly active account. Could you please use it when editing discussions like this? Hobit (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited and read wikipedia a lot before with a passion but I never created a user as it's not required by wikipedia policy. I have always edited using my IP (which can be changed automatically after some months by my ISP). I have no idea about IPs I have had and, of course, will have in the future especially if I get to travel but I'm fine this way as each of my contributions is to a new topic. I unfortunately wouldn't get enough time to be a full time regular with an account. 197.226.59.218 (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, but probably TNT the whole article other than the lede needs a huge rewrite. (following comments are from the DRV): [25] and [26] are both fine sources. There are many many books that discuss him (e.g. [27] where he is in the title of a chapter and [28] which is more typical of these books). Now given sources like these, this will end up being a fairly negative BLP and we tend to want darn strong sources for such a BLP. But I think we've got them. Forbes and the Globe and Mail are solid sources. This guy is certainly notable. Hobit (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Forbes article and a book (Mercenaries: An African Security Dilemma). I think the lede is now okay and fairly balanced. The article needs a rewrite however. The majority of sources out there have some fairly harsh things to say about this person. Our article doesn't reflect that. As noted, it might make sense to use WP:TNT to nuke all but the lede and then putting it under some form of protection to prevent the hagiography. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia Editors Hobit (per above), Jclemens, Szzuk and DGG inter alia refer to the quality of the sources. DGG: "the person has been involved in several companies so it can't simply be redirected to the company, and the article is not overly promotional and is within the range of what can be fixed by normal editing." Mauritiusboy (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. Nearly all of the information as currently edited on the article is factual, although mostly positive. There is no requirement for Wikipedia articles to be negative! The article should stand as it is and be open to be normally edited. It makes no sense to nuke all of it and to start afresh on the apparent basis of a couple of negative articles. It needs to be balanced. — 178.166.106.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 178.166.106.68 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is and edit. Various parts of the Forbes article are inacurrate, if the report to United Nations Security council bears out. 83.201.196.77 (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — 83.201.196.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. The individual has received enough coverage to be notable, even if the article is currently in bad shape. Cheers 1292simon (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling soundtrack albums[edit]

List of best-selling soundtrack albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure listcruft, aided with original research. Some entries are even unsourced. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An unnecessary content fork of List of best-selling albums. Mattg82 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Soundtrack (film songs') albums are different from studio albums. You gi through the list, most of the best selling albums are from India, not USA. Only very few of the albums from List of best-selling albums are soundtrack. So, these two are related, but not the same. And, the article is provided with good references as well. মাখামাখি (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as content fork. There are plenty of soundtrack listed on the best-selling albums list. To focus on soundtracks is unnecessary. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - putting in the information that such albums are soundtracks may be of interest to some users of Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to List of best-selling albums. Really doesn't need it's own article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - only the top four soundtrack albums have sold 20-30m copies, the lowest box on the list of best-selling albums. If the wider list is extended to accommodate the rest of the soundtracks, it might have to include unmanageably many other albums too. Mortee (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not proposing to change the criteria for inclusion on the List of Best Selling Albums, which is currently "the figure must have been published by a reliable source and the album must have sold at least 20 million copies worldwide.", merely add the soundtracks that meet that criteria to the page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Which is already there. changing my !vote to a Delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as content fork. We don't have list of best-selling albums by genre unless it is put out officially by RIAA or other charting sources as with List of best-selling Christmas albums in the United States List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States List of best-selling albums in the United States. Compare to Talk:K-pop#RfC:_.22Is_a_most_viewed_list_from_several_sources_acceptable.3F.22 discussion which dealt with the content fork of YouTube videos by genre. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It seems that the copyvio concerns have been addressed through a rewrite. Sandstein 18:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury Catholic Parish SA[edit]

Salisbury Catholic Parish SA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no reason to think that anything about a Catholic parish would be notable. Anything notable could be included at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide. Grahame (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not the first article about a Parish; there are others about Anglican and Catholic Parishes. In fact, the reason I have written the title as the Salisbury Catholic Parish SA, it is because there is another article about a Salisbury Parish located in New Brunswick Canada, plus the necessity to distinguish the Salisbury Catholic Parish from the Salisbury Anglican Parish. Therefore, I think that Wikipedia needs to be consistent and we cannot write just about the Canadian Parishes and leave outside the Australian ones or about the Anglican Parishes and ignore the Catholic Parishes. I agree that the notability of this article is not because it is about a Catholic Parish, but because from a historic perspective for the City of Salisbury Council, the city of Adelaide and ultimately South Australia, the Salisbury Parish represents an important part of their heritage and history. The fact that the Parish is not five hundred years old as some Parishes in Europe or hundreds of years as the Parishes in the Americas does not mean that the article is irrelevant. Unfortunately, the history of Australia is very recent compared to other countries and hardly you will find something about before 1840s in Adelaide, except for Aboriginal art. Hence, using such a criteria, it would be very hard to write about South Australian History in Wikipedia. But if we consider that the old St Augustine Church and the presbytery are among the oldest buildings in the district and that they are considered heritage buildings by the authorities, then I do not think that it can be ignore their relevance. Actually, in Salisbury there were some other churches that were considered as heritage, but unfortunately we have lost them by reason of different circumstances. Also to be noted that the St Augustine Church was used by the Orthodox community until they were able to build their own church, so this temple is also part of the past of the Orthodox community. All this history perhaps is not important for somebody at the other side of the World or maybe living in Sydney or Melbourne, but from the South Australian viewpoint, it is part of the history that we would like to leave to our children and grandchildren. Otherwise, as it happened with the old Methodist Church in Salisbury, it will be knocked down or remodelled as it was the case of the Anglican old church. I spoke to my brother who is an architect and he assures me that from an architectural point of view definitely the old church has notability. The fact that you may not be interested in the history of Salisbury or that you do not share historic or architectural interests does not mean that an article is not notable, but I can tell you that for most locals is central to their identity. I have also added some references where those sources were provided by local authorities and from their perspective the Salisbury Parish is also part of our history. The same case is for the cemetery and the schools, if you consider how many pioneers are buried in such cemetery and how many children from these area have studied in those schools. Probably, the article needs improvement to transmit clearer these ideas. However, please consider that about 20% of the population in this area is Catholic and that we share this heritage, but even for people that are not Catholics such as the Orthodox community, the Catholic Parish and their churches and schools are valuable and of their interest. About including this information in the article of the Archdiocese of Adelaide, please keep in mind that there are about 69 Parishes in the Archdiocese and perhaps some are very small, but there are some others that have their own history and they are very active hence, the length of the article of the archdiocese could become very long. Arangel1970 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You might be confused between ecclesiastical parishes and municipal parishes. For example, Salisbury Parish, New Brunswick is the equivalent of a census subdivision. These pass notability under WP:GEOLAND, although I think Canadian parishes are somewhat marginal. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. If "anything notable could be included at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide," this is a merger discussion. I agree with a selective merge. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide can be expanded so that there is a brief history of each parish, rather than a list. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to heritage listing, it seems likely that the old St Augustine's Roman Catholic Church and Presbytery are notable buildings that could merit an article at St Augustine's Roman Catholic Church, assuming the WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMO concerns are addressed. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I separated information about the heritage-listed church into a separate section that could be easily moved into a separate article. This building is notable based on WP:GEOFEAT, although the parish itself may not be notable. I could not find much in the article about the presbytery. Details of the presbytery and architectural description of the church building both need to be added. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Arangel1970, it seems likely that you have a conflict of interest here, if so, you must disclose it on the article talk page. I speedied this before as blatant spam, and i would have done so again if it wasn't for the merge suggestion. I'll content myself with going through and removing the obvious unsourced or self-sourced promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on notability, but delete based on copyright. Please see my DRV comment here for more detail on my copyright concerns. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If the COPY-VIO issues can be resolved there is just about enough here for us to keep, as an early Catholic parish, but it should be renamed to Salisbury Catholic Parish, South Australia as the abbreviation SA will not be obvious to non-Australians. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources, especially on the old St. Augustine church building, suffice to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've changed my opinion based on the notability of the historic buildings per WP:GEOFEAT and the historic contribution of the parish to the Salisbury community per WP:GNG (particularly as the history of the parish is intrinsically tied to the history of the buildings). There could be a better title and a more appropriate focus for the article, but that is a separate discussion. We have responded to the copyvio concern, old versions can be deleted (if necessary for legal and policy reasons) without deleting the current version. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 14:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Sehns Pal Khan[edit]

Raja Sehns Pal Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references given, let alone any authoritative references. Nothing indicates notability. Poorly written.--Rpclod (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the Arecibo message[edit]

Reply to the Arecibo message (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think the question to be answered here is not "is Reply to the Arecibo message a hoax?" but "is Reply to the Arecibo message a notable hoax?" The internet is abuzz with possible replies to Arecibo message, and this is one of them. I have looked into the references given in this article, and they appear to be self-published books with publishers that do not even rate a Wikipedia article. Pete AU Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I originally speedied this. Blythwood (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the references are not authoritative. There is no reason to give self-published material credence where none should exist.--Rpclod (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-published references. Gamaliel (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Per above, self-published references, no evidence this is even a notable hoax. Also, the entire article clearly fails WP:NPOV. Leaving the article intact (presenting event as actual alien contact based solely on self-published refs) gives WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE theory. Without prominent reliable sources to improve it, deletion is the only reasonable option. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Rpclod, no need to provide publicity to self-published hoaxers. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jerrykroth-391 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:224E:3400:65C8:C4A4:45C9:EB78 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Orangemike, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Anthony Fernando[edit]

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

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

No reliable sources; only sources are one's YouTube link and a Wikipedia article. Article was last time tagged with PROD, but the creator removed it. Google search returns anything but reliable, published sources. theinstantmatrix (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that according to a post today at Commons:Undeletion requests that User:Mikeart67 is the subject, Mike Anthony Fernando, so the whole article is a Conflict of Interest. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]