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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Lagassé (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)

Unelected, fringe political candidate. WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Usual consensus has changed since 2013 AfD. Madg2011 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has made a few unsuccessful attempts, but has never been an elected candidate. Seems to have tried his hand at a few thing, but nothing singularly notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While we used to have a consensus that running for the leadership of a political party was a notability claim in and of itself, that was deprecated several years ago — now, a leadership candidate is notable only if they either win the leadership or have some other independent claim of notability besides that, such as preexisting notability for other endeavours and/or concurrent notability as an MP or MLA. Nothing here, however, constitutes a notability claim that would have gotten him an article for any reason other than the leadership race itself — and he's not the subject of enough of the sources to claim that he passes WP:GNG, either: many of them just namecheck his existence in coverage about the more notable and more prominent candidates or the overall campaign, and others are primary sources or pieces of his own writing, which are not notability-supporting sources either — there's only one citation here that genuinely demonstrates Lagassé as the subject of reliable source coverage in his own right, and that's just not enough. There really just isn't anything here that's compelling grounds for him to have a standalone article separately from having his name mentioned in the other articles where it's relevant to mention. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article needs significant pruning but the subject has received significant third party coverage in the past and thus passes WP:GNG. Nixon Now (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If not keep, then merge with New Democratic Party leadership election, 1989 so that people reading about the leadership election can find out something about the candidates rather than just their names. Nixon Now (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant third party coverage about him where and in what notable context? The sourcing here consists of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"B.C. teacher bids to lead NDP," Toronto Star, 10 April 1989, A9; "Teacher enters NDP race," Toronto Star, 1 August 1989, C6; Thomas Walkem, "NDP leadership candidates practice art of the ordinary," Toronto Star, 15 October 1989, A22. An article in which the topic is the subject himself is not a mere "namecheck". Nixon Now (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are covering him in a context that counts as an "inherent" notability claim — coverage generated in the context of the leadership race itself just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who's earned permanent coverage in an encyclopedia on that basis. So if you're shooting for a WP:GNG pass just because "some media coverage exists", it would take far more than just three citations to get him there. And he's not the primary subject of "NDP leadership candidates practice art of the ordinary", either — that one's about all of the candidates, not him as a topic of special interest separately from everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't paper. People reading about old leadership elections may indeed be curious about who the candidates actually were and there's no reason not to provide that information. Nixon Now (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a reason not to provide that information: the need for a person to pass a subject-specific notability standard, on the strength of enough reliable source coverage to make them more than just a transient WP:BLP1E, before a Wikipedia article becomes appropriate. The idea that we need to keep an article about everybody who ever ran for the leadership of a political party at all, even if they lost and have no other notability claim at all besides running and losing, is not new ground that Wikipedia hasn't considered and debated before. It's been taken into account, and consensus decided that it just makes them a BLP1E who doesn't qualify for an article if there's no other notability claim outside of that context itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a source for this consensus in Wikipedia's policy pages? Nixon Now (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." A quick search of the Globe and Mail archives yields:

• York, G. (1989, Dec 01). Mixup symbolic of B.C. teacher's modest campaign. The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/docview/1237201335?accountid=14369
• Teacher enters NDP race. (1989, Aug 01). The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/docview/1237184690?accountid=14369

You are insisting that coverage must also be independent of the election in which the candidate ran, but WP:NPOL doesn't say that. Nixon Now (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in any election would always get an automatic "GNG exempts them from having to pass NPOL" if the existence of a handful of campaign-related coverage itself were all it took to pass GNG. There are only three ways to make a candidate for office notable: (1) they win the election and thereby become the holder of the office they were running for, (2) they have some other valid and properly sourced claim of notability besides the candidacy itself, or (3) they received so much more coverage than everybody else in the same boat could also show that they can credibly claim to be a special case. Simply being able to show that a few pieces of campaign-specific coverage exists is not enough in and of itself, because if that were all it took then there would never be any non-notable candidates in any elections at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL doesn't say that. Nixon Now (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia notability standards are written in general terms, not expanded into epic novels that preemptively address every possible question of interpretation in advance. It's not enough to read the letter of any inclusion guideline and say that it's been passed — you also need to be familiar with the established AFD consensus about how the guidelines are interpreted in cases of debate about them. And my summary was correct about how NPOL is interpreted here in cases of dispute — because every candidate in any election always gets enough coverage to claim that even though they fail NPOL they still pass GNG anyway, NPOL would be inherently disembowelled if campaign-related coverage itself were all it took to get a candidate over GNG in lieu of NPOL. So yes, a candidate for office does need to win, have preexisting notability for other reasons or show a credible reason why their candidacy is somehow a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy — the fact that those conditions haven't been explicitly stated in NPOL does not make them not true, because passing a notability standard is not just a matter of being able to claim that a person technically meets the letter of the law. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, if its a matter of discretion. Then let's let discretion fall on the side of inclusion. Nixon Now (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NPOL and GNG the coverage of his (failed) bids are not sufficient to prove notability as per #3 of NPOL. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merge would have been a good idea, except for the target not existing :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Oil Norge (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:NCORP Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - totally agree with Eddie, because I searched on Google and no notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirbanzo Thanks. Perhaps you meant hits, not 'Ghits'? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ghits" is slang here on Wikipedia for Google search results. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only on Wikipedia.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh... Live and learn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with parent company Norske Shell. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above, not notable, merge with Norske Shell. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Norske Shell does not have an article. Geschichte (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Venhuizen (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)

Minor political figure. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. No secondary sources whatsoever on article, and although WP:BEFORE turned tons of Gnews hits, they're all simply namechecks and quotes from the subject, exactly what you'd expect to find for a staffer. John from Idegon (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imma lova not a fighter. Could you catch me those dead links for me brotha? Also you gon' prod Dusty Johnson yet? Koncurrentkat (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Neither GNG nor NPOL is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, see his credentials:

• South Dakota Board of Regents member or regent appointed by the Governor Mike Rounds, see predecessor Harvey C. Jewett IV (same or similar credentials)
• Chief of staff to Governor Dennis Daugaard, see predecessor chief of staff Dusty Johnson (same or similar credentials)
• Campaign manager of Dennis Daugaard's successful South Dakota gubernatorial election, 2010 & South Dakota gubernatorial election, 2014

For kicks,

• Truman scholar
• He's also the son-in-law to the Gov..c'mon

Koncurrentkat (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Send it. Koncurrentkat (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG, V, and NPOL. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Several of these are roles that could get him an article if he could be shown as the subject of enough reliable source media coverage for them to clear WP:GNG, but none of them are "inherently" notable roles that automatically guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because his existence can technically be verified in a primary source list of university scholarship recipients. Notability for Wikipedia purposes is not a question of what an article says, but of how well it does or doesn't reference what it says. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Cotton Bowl Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and way WP:TOOSOON. Bowl game articles are usually created after the teams are announced. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep what's the point of deleting it? It's going to happen and it's less than a year away. Lepricavark (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: The point of deleting is that it's unsourced with no evidence of any sources yet (see below) and all sections are empty. It's absolutely WP:TOOSOON for this. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully submit that deleting the article now is pointless as the game is less than a year away. Lepricavark (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep typically we retain articles about the upcoming events for major bowl games such as this. There is plenty of information about the game even before we know the teams. There is even a website for the event. Should be a clear pass of WP:GNG even for a future event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a notable event that has been going on for 80 years. This year it will be hosting the semi-finals for the College Football Playoff. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I think the nominator is right as an article requires secondary sources in order not to violate WP:TOOSOON, and the article is currently completely unreferenced: I quickly tried to reference it but had difficulty, as there were lots of ticket sites in the first few pages of a search. I want to vote delete as a result but I feel as if I'd be overly pedantic if I did so. SportingFlyer talk 02:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, a source has been found and we all know this event will either take place, or be notable for not taking place. SportingFlyer talk 06:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources: 2018 Cotton Bowl Classic" on Google returns 16 results, and "2018 Cotton Bowl" returns 2,390, but mostly from this past year's event. News results return 1 and 4, respectively. Clearly no evidence of notability yet in secondary, reliable sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep No rationale for deletion has been presented--MARY018 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Strike CU confirmed sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MARY018: Can you elaborate? There is a completely valid deletion rationale. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced is a valid argument but becomes no longer relevant once a source is added, which I just did. If it was one of the hundreds of bowl games I can understand waiting for sources, but this is for the Playoffs so I can understand the early focus. A redirect to College Football Playoffs, or Cotton Bowl Classic, would of been a better alternative than requesting deletion. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all above, and historical precedents like this one. Deletion is pointless in cases like this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable Event Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is a notable event that will certainly occur, and even if it does not, it will be notable for not happening. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, as unanimous, including withdrawal by nominator. (non-admin closure) Doncram (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parachinar Airport (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)

Subject is a small, defunct airport of dubious note. Proposing deletion as the subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why do you say the airport is defunct and dubious? Pakistan Airlines once flew STOL aircraft from there [2] and other airlines appear to be considering it for future service (trivial reference) [3], and a plane got torched by militants there in 2010 [4]. There was also a light plane crash there in 2010. [5] It's also in the proper databases for verifiability reasons [6] [7] [8]. There are also a couple secondary sources linked in the article itself, and a trivial reference to its expansion in English-language press. I think it's definitely something that can be developed, especially since not all sources may be in English. SportingFlyer talk 02:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SportingFlyer. It does appear to have been a verified functioning official airport, with commercial service and IATA code to boot. --Oakshade (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even smaller airstrips that are defunct are typically notable (this might be covered by GEOsomething - similar to an abandoned village). In this case it is actually functioning and sourcing is available.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above.  samee  ^talk 15:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn in light of sources which have been located. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closing duplicate nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordica destinations (2nd nomination) for the actual AfD discussion. (non-admin closure) -- intgr [talk] 22:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article is supported by only a single primary WP:SELFSOURCE. A ((third-party)) tag was removed. According to WP:PSTS, "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability." The text could be merged into the main article. This standalone article fails WP:OR. I am sympathetic to the idea that the subject's website is likely to be accurate, but this article fails. A WP:BEFORE search for secondary sources turns up nothing useful. Rhadow (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original discussion page was incorrectly formatted; I've fixed up the template and will relist it. I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting that the author does not dispute the deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Justlettersandnumbers, this page is not valid anymore, so I was also about to request for its deletion. Thus I will not dispute its removal.Justtryanother (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intugame (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)

• Undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use. The editor claims here to have created the logo "As a part of my job as Marketing Manager of Intugame". Evaluation of the notability or otherwise of the company will probably require fluency in Bulgarian. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article seems to be a duplicate of QuarkVR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I've now nominated QuarkVR for deletion for the same reasons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be paid editing, and WP:COI violation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to QuarkVR (with no prejudice for/against nomination for deletion of the latter) as an alternative to deletion. --Izno (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 14:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it was probably created in violation of WP:TOU and, anyway, fails WP:NCORP. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this diff [9] points to a G7 CSD as the creator is the only major contributor. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting that we do not typically merge unsourced content into another article given that content is required to be verifiable. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in the Comoros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is completely unsourced and I have notability concerns as well. Hinduism does not seem to be a noteworthy religion in the Comoros. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - unsourced unnotable and some ludicrous claims made. Amisom (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeMerge into Religion_in_the_Comoros - not enough here to substantiate its own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nothing to merge unless at least one of the claims can be substantiated. Also, there's nothing currently on the religion page on Hinduism so a redirect wouldn't make sense. Do you have any sources on Hinduism in Comoros? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if someone wants to write a proper article. The Hindu population is very small, I can find sentences like: "The government continues to significantly respect religious freedom, especially for the several hundred non-Sunni residents including Shia Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and Protestants." But noting in the way of SIGCOV comes up in quick searches. So while the article may well be correct that some Hindus arrived as migrants, presumably in the French colonial period, and although it would be in line with our many Hinduism in..., it seem wiser to delete, unless or until someone comes by willing and able to source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professor (stock character) (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)

Simply being a professor is not a stock character type like mad scientist or absent-minded professor, it is a fictional job. Therefore this article is unnecessary and List of fictional professors already fills that purpose. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. "Professor" is far too general to be a stock character. Search for professor stock character gives results for absent-minded professor stock character, separate concept which has its own article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, the only encyclopedic content is already on List of fictional professors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think if there were some references here discussing the concept as notable, then it would save the article, as clearly there is a sort of semi-generic professor character ins shows. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. The article's only content as it stands is a duplicate. Acebulf (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 'Professor' is not a 'stock character' as such. DaveApter (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete far too general and not notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

By chance I heard this website shut down last month but didn't see any gaming website cover its closure. Even then I didn't see any independent coverage of the site itself. The article itself comes off as promoting the site and nothing else. GamerPro64 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage in RS. Site and social media seems to have shut down/become inactive a couple weeks ago, yet I cannot find mention of this in any news sources. Article in its current state also does not contain any RS indicating notability, possibly because no such sources existed at the time of creation either. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and Hrodvarsson. -- ferret (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article is backlinked by 2,237 articles in mainspace. Any plans to clean up the red links? -- GreenC 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Most likely references. Twinkle can remove the red links, though I'm sure a bot could do so also trivially. --Izno (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Does appear to be notable. Loads of reliable sources will refer to its reviews/news/interviews/previews as if they are trustworthy (but those are just fleeting mentions). Some examples of articles that refer to it are: --Coin945 (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GameZone Online is to build and host ecommerce stores for the games industry"
  • "GameZone+Online"&source=bl&ots=EgZbIs_09K&sig=JtYHXtK0-n86bUKeSLUA3raJs9A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjajdm7hs3ZAhWGFJQKHZIxBxA4ChDoAQg6MAU#v=onepage&q=%22GameZone%20Online%22&f=false "A magazine with reliable, unbiased information about PC and video games. "2
  • "GameZone's Morris told me in an email this morning. "I think in the future, in an effort to be more transparent with gamers and our audience, I will ask how the quote will be used and where it will be placed.""
  • "However, the campaign is obviously targeting garners, being placed in such sites as PCZone, Gameplay and Gamezone." (implying that the site is considered a reliable source of information for gamers).
  • The Cincinnati Post review of the site: "Here's another good site with the full load - hints, cheats and reviews, too. I really like the setup on this..."
• See also A wikipedia analysis of whether Gamezone is a reliable source (it passed)--Coin945 (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that a reliable source also be a notable topic. --Masem (t) 01:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. See Hardcore Gaming 101 and Gematsu. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Science hero (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)

Seems to simply be a WP:DICDEF combined with a WP:OR list. It may be a TVTropes page but the only thing that actual sources can come up with is real life scientists who are heroes. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the generic nature of the term makes it hard to confirm sources don't exist, but the way the article's written defines it as a specific class of characters from a singular work. I can't see this meeting GNG. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced and too generic. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Lady (character) (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 evidence that this is a legitimate stock character, and most of the article is about the Shakespeare character (which already has its own article at Dark Lady (Shakespeare)). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The stereotype appears in many other works besides Shakespeare. For example, here's another source and yet more. Andrew D. (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently there is a tragic mulatto article for that character archetype. Making this article still superflous._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mulatto is just one sort of dark lady. The substantial nature of that article, as well as the Shakespeare case, further demonstrates that we need this page as a broad concept article to disambiguate all the various examples and sub-types. As another example of these, see this paper about the dark ladies of Edgar Allan Poe – women who are doomed, dying or dead. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: It is WP:OR to connect one author's "Dark Lady" character (in this case, Leslie Fiedler's or Edgar Allan Poe's) with another's (Shakespeare's) without a source that explicitly makes the comparison. Their having the same "name" is not enough. If you want to completely throw out everything in the article and rewrite it to compare Poe's various Dark Ladies to each other, using the Narendra source, that would be fine, but you could do that with the page being deleted as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, juuxtaposition of content under the same heading is not OR; it's our normal way of editing. The guideline WP:BROAD tells us that bringing such material together is best practise. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear... please tell me you are joking...? WP:SYNTH is quite explicit that drawing original comparisons between literary "characters" based on their being discussed in sources using the same words (but without the sources directly comparing them) is disallowed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Hijiri said, mashing all literary mentions of a "Dark Lady" would violate WP:SYNTH. If a particular author's use of a Dark Lady character is notable, then it should have its own article, not a broad concept article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Dark Lord (fiction) and Dark Lady are regular components of fiction. Ample references to prove that. Dream Focus 11:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added in a reference a song by Cher about a dark lady, called Dark Lady. Sifting through various results in Google news, I see them refer to Hela from Marvel's Thor series as a dark lady. [10] Dream Focus 18:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Use of "lady" as a noun-adjunct (they actually refer to her as a "dark lady villain") is clearly unrelated. She is a villain who is both dark and a lady. Please be more careful with sourcing, and stop !voting down AFDs based solely on principle while trying to find "sources" that might seem to support your principle if other editors don't actually click on them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, the way the fictional works in question use "lady", it is obviously the female equivalent of "gentleman", not the female equivalent of "lord"; I've been an on-and-off fantasy junkie for most of my life (I'm 29 now; my first time playing a Dungeons & Dragons-based video game was when I was 11) and have rarely encountered "Dark Ladies" -- if they exist at all, they are surely a deliberate and obvious inversion of the Dark Lord trope. Even the Korean film review linked does not refer to Hela as a "Dark Lady" but as a villain who is both dark and a lady (in the sense of simply being female -- it's not very PC, but a close read shows a bunch of English errors, and the writer's other articles are not much better). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dark Lady (Shakespeare) already exists, and everything else in the article except for a single line about Latinas is unsourced (and for some reason the GBooks link there is returning an error, although I suspect, given that no page number is given, that it doesn't actually talk about a literary archetype called a "Dark Lady" and just says "shadowy woman" or something like that). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems to be an article synthesized from a combination of uses of terms that would actually be fit under the Shakespeare term, the Tragic mulatto article, or simply characters with that name, rather than coverage of the actual independent topic as a notable stock character concept.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is easy to find coverage of the matter as a general concept rather than as a specific example. For example, here's yet another source: The Dark Lady. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: If you want to rewrite the article to be about something completely different (in this latest case, the dilithic "Dark Lady" motif from Italian baroque poetry), fire ahead. It doesn't change the fact that your source is not about a "character" and that the article as is is nothing but SYNTH that has nothing to do with any of the sources you and DF have located. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there doesn't seem to be enough sources to prove that this is a notable character in the same way as the Dark Lord is. The term Lady in the examples given is not used in the same way as Lord but rather as an analogy for woman. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adenike Fajemirokun (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-executive director of a company. Questionable notability. Travelbird (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep Notable enough to have her own profile on Bloomberg. Her speeches have been noted in businesstodayng.com and guardian.ng over the course of years. The Sun News did a profile of her and noted her as a "rising star." The Daily Trust did a profile of her when she was promoted to director at AIICO Pension Managers Limited. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A female cooperate professional on the board of many leading companies seem like a big deal. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Dan arndt (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to fail WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE] SportingFlyer (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete: I'm not seeing compelling WP:SIGCOV to warrant keeping this. Marquardtika (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article doesn't need to pass WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE because it already satisfies WP:GNG. The topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets GNG. Business people is close, but add the significant coverage, we get to adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the items which are being claimed towards making her notable are just routine aspects of someone's career. I mention this as the sourcing for the article all points back to these routine items. For example the lede tells us that "Head of Operational Risk of First Bank of Nigeria and joined the Dangote Group in 2014 and serves as the Group Chief Risk Officer." Ok, she had some higher positions in a company. So? Being on a board, as mentioned in the lede, is not notable. It's true that an article can contain non-notable items. However this one tried to make a case for notability by using sources that comment on entirely routine, non-notable job. activities. Any notability that exists here is extremely minor.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG the sources are not strong enough. Most are either quotes, associated, routine coverage or puff pieces, or not very reliable, one even refers to her as him where they seem just to be repeating things said in the 1st person by the subject. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP: the coverage is limited to local news, trade press and similar low quality sources. Article created by an obviously conflicted single-purpose account. Rentier (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a UK building trade outlet with 200 or so outlets, so a big national chain. The refs in the article are crap so I know why it is here and if it gets deleted well they don't care so I don't. Szzuk (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we still require WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:NCORP, the size should only be a factor to the extent it has been reported by independent sources. Rentier (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call it a weak keep. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lots of coverage such as Builders merchant has 50 posts to fill in Leicester - and here's how you can apply and pieces in trade press, but no in-depth coverage in RS. Fails GNG and NCORP. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotionalism-only article for a nn business. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aniruddha Bhattacharya (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 credible indication of notability, largely promotional with no independent references. I could not find any suitable references from a brief search Beevil (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete autobiographical article (if one believes the user page of the article creator) that fails NMUSIC and GNG nothing found of interest in a search, CSD declined by a sockpuppet otherwise probably would have been deleted already. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - google news provides some name checks, but no significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability was not established. The article is based on primary and self-published sources only. Retimuko (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1. per nom, the sources I checked were primary and WP:PRIMARYNEWS, seems WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 22:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the rash of cryptocurrencies I also have concerns about the usual cryptocurrency article enthusiasm / promotion yadder yadder, as we seem to be playing whack-a-mole with these non-notable or borderline N articles which are created with enthusiasm / promotion. May I suggest that as all these ICOs have been compared to startup IPOs, bringing with them the same kind of necessary WP:DEADLINE pressure here that isn't fitting, but crucially, the spirit of WP:NCORP should apply, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 22:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ufo Mustonen (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 real indication of notability, and Google produces nothing but YouTube videos. Only cite returns error and all it purports to say is that he played somewhere once. Finnish Wikipedia exists but is mainly discography with one cite to a random blog. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, not notable - no RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - miles away from meeting any of our notability standards, no reliable sources. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Mayhem in Manchester (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)

Has been a redirect for many years, which occasionally gets reconstituted back into an article. Current sourcing is poor (to be charitable). Couple of brief blurbs, couple of database listings. The best in terms of content is a blog, unfortunately. Searches turned up very little in terms of any coverage, let alone substantive in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The previous article which was a redirected is completely different than the article in its current form. The event meets WP:LASTING as it is still talked about today due to its controversy over originally being a PPV to becoming a poorly shot home video release. There is enough sourcing in the article to pass WP:GNG. - Galatz^Talk 18:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep clearly a notable event. I find it hard to believe there are no paper sources or newspaper articles in tabloids for the event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete - None of the sources currently in the article are proven reliable sources. According to WP:PW/RS, 411mania and prowrestlinghistory.com are "not yet proven". And even if prowrestlinghistory was a reliable source, this is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE match results. I don't buy the WP:LASTING argument either (at least not yet). According to WP:LASTING, "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable" and "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else". What permanent effect did this have? What is the reliable source that proves this event was the direct cause of said result? Nikki♥311 23:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've finally had a chance to more thoroughly research this topic, and I've decided on delete. This topic does not meet WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 01:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:EVENT. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What part of WP:EVENT? It's had no lasting effect (as pointed out by Nikki311 above), the depth of coverage by reliable sources is non-existent, it has very limited scope. Not sure how it meets EVENT. Simply saying meets a standard is not the same as showing how it meets that standard. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My gut feeling looking at this says keep, but it in fact, it doesn't meet any of the criteria to keep under WP:EVENT. None of the sources are particularly notable, independant of the subject, or qualify as RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing is bad and doesn't have coverage in reliable, independent sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced and not seeing any notably. Also a copyright violation https://www.halleonard.com/biographyDisplay.do?id=141&subsiteid=1

Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)===Don Wyrtzen===[reply]

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

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

Unsourced and not seeing any notably. Also a copyright violation https://www.halleonard.com/biographyDisplay.do?id=141&subsiteid=1

Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Graham (snooker player) (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)

Snooker player - Fails WP:ANYBIO - no significant achievements and a WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGOV. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? The article says he played in the 1991 World Championship, I checked and he did, what more do you want? Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:: Comment - @Szzuk: besides the gettyimages and cuetracker.net (normal sport/game record), if you do find any other source stating the claim, do advise. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He played at the World Championship - the premier professional snooker competition in the world, he doesn't need references because it is a matter of public record, he passes notability cue sports by a mile. Szzuk (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think @Szzuk: is referring to WP:SPORTCRIT/WP:CUENOT. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:: Comment - @Szzuk: Wikipedia need WP:RS to gauge nobility for such it needs the source. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added another citation (which, unlike CueTracker, isn't blacklisted). It shows that not only did he play at The Crucible, but that he twice got to the quarter-finals of ranking events. Narky Blert (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne de Beistegui (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)

Has only one role in film and a WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV - Fails WP:NACTOR and may be WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one minor role in one film is not at all close to making one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, not notable actor. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William F.X. Maughan (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:NPOL. Local politician. Isn't notable as a member of the military either. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicans-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, and salt per G4. AaronWikia (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P. T. De Silva (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)

Seems to be stub. Has been edited to remove recommendations for cleanup. He's a doctor. PabloMartinez (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No rationale for deletion has been presented -- being a stub and a doctor are not reasons. Regardless, a quick search reveals indepth English sources and I imagine there are more from his home country.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The subject has verifiably received a national honour (Deshabandu), there is verifiable claim of national significance in the medical academic field, and obits from what seems to be significant reliable Sri Lanka English media. Also note the possibility of additional reliable coverage in other languages. Seems sufficiently notable to Keep. Dl2000 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)/[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly satisfies WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - enough reliable sources exist to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPERSON, and WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian National Philharmonic Orchestra (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 valid sources found for the existence of this orchestra or the information contained within the article, for example, the personnel involved or claim of Grammy Award nomination. It is possible that this may be a hoax article that deliberately confuses people between it and Estonian National Symphony Orchestra or Estonian Philharmonic Chamber Choir (the information contain within the article does not match the information given in the official website for both - [14][15]) The only possible mention found may be a confusion with the Estonian National Symphony Orchestra - [16]A Hzh (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DEL7; its existence cannot be verified by reliable sources. None of the sources listed actually mention the "Estonian National Philharmonic Orchestra". After extensive searching I found only one mention of it (in addition to the one Hzh found), on a Danish site in a blurb about the purported conductor, Øyvind Björn (who I could not find bio info on elsewhere), which says "Direktør for Estland's Nationale Filharmoniske Orkester" [17] on KarriereKanonen which I am pretty sure is a WP:USERGENERATED profile and definitely makes exceptional claims. (added by User:ElfLady64 who forgot to sign).
• Clear Delete - no verifiable sources.-- Smerus (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Hill (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)

Advertising, non-notable PabloMartinez (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep in light of the coverage—it's not a huge amount but it's certainly sufficient to establish notability. A trout for this blatantly bad-faith nomination, though; what exactly do you think is "advertising" here? Do you think opera companies recruit their performers on the basis of their Wikipedia entries? ‑ Iridescent 20:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep not our usual pop-culture subject, so if a fringe subject raises its head above the GNG level we should be ready to include it, even when most of us haven't got a clue what a baritone does. Agathoclea (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The nominator's claim of "advertising" is unsupported. Sufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Enough reliable references and external links; not another orphan article .LouisAlain (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and I added places and colleagues and reviews. Interesting scenic collage of Bach's Passion with the trials in 1945, but can't go into more detail. Seems too much already, but I felt provoked ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—And I second the suggestion of a fish course for the filer for the bizarre nom. Is there something going on that we don't know / ought to know here? In any case, there is clearly sufficient sourcing—in news and the literature to indicate a depth and persistence of coverage to pass the minimum requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This singer has had an interesting career so far, and is likely to be active for a while.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC based on the sources currently in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article clarified and sourcing improved; nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Hangings (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)

Let me cite the "Impact" section: "The only national art world press that the exhibition received was commissioned" There appears to be a fundamental lack of independent coverage of this exhibition, and an attendant lack of notability. (As a distant second concern, this would need to be moved away from squatting on an extremely generic name) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebaconfairy The failure of the exhibition was to have the craft material artists recognized by the fine art world. There is/ was no question by the crafts world. The 2015 exhibition Fiber: Sculpture 1960-Present that was created for the Institute of Contemporary Art, and traveled to Wexner and Des Moines Art obliquely referred to the Wall Hangings exhibition: "With Fiber, Janelle Porter, the ICA's Mannion Family Senior Curator, has organized an exhibition of sweeping scope and substance, the first in four decades to assemble and address this art and these artists, until now under-recognized or long-forgotten."^[1] The exhibition referred to four decades ago is Wall Hangings- the list of artists have 10 overlaps, which is almost 1/3 of the newer exhibition and slightly more than 1/3 of the Wall hangings exhibition. In string, felts & thread^[2] (a prominent craft theory book) there is a section that discusses on the tactics employed by Elenor Constatine & Lenor Larsen and how it may have mitigated their intentions. —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep While I am not clear as to what distinction the article editor is trying to make by calling Bourgeois's article "commissioned," the fact remains that it appeared in Craft Horizons, the widely-circulated journal of the American Craft Council, a source independent of the Museum of Modern Art. While the show was not widely reviewed at the time, it's evident from the sources cited above and in the article, as well as in Virginia Troy's article in this volume that the show and MoMA's series of textile exhibitions in the 1950s and 1960s were essential to a broader cultural conversation about the place of craft in art museums. (The Bourgeois article is cited in note 52 of Troy's article.) All of these together constitute sustained, significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KR26740 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This exhibition may not have received much critical attention at the time, but has received it (in Elissa Auther's book) later, and is now considered significant because of the impact that it had on the reception and classification of Fiber art. Mduvekot (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mduvekot's assessment of the long term impact. I removed the "commissioned" article language, as I think that is not relevant for this context, and quite a red herring: Elmidae it is conventional for magazines to pay for reviews that their writers do; in some cases these are staff writers, paid a salary; in other cases they are freelancers who have pitched a story; and in smaller instances they are articles which editors initiate by commissioning a writer to work on. In this sense, the commissioned articles are considered the highest priority by the editor of the publication, which is why I think Auther mentions it in her text:

"Regrettably, given the exhibition’s importance in the history of the American fiber movement, the only national art-world press Wall Hangings received was a review that Craft Horizons commissioned from sculptor Louise Bourgeois."

• Additionally, I found several peer reviewed texts from the last ~15 years that consider the legacy of the exhibition:
  • Fleetwood, N., Díaz, E., & Pepe, S. (2011). Reviews. Art Journal, 70(2), 112-121.
  • Tulokas, M. (2010). Auther, Elissa. String, felt, thread: The hierarchy of art and craft in American art. CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, 47(11), 2086.
  • Sorkin, Jenni. (2003). Way Beyond Craft: Thinking through the Work of Mildred Constantine. Textile: The Journal of Cloth and Culture, 1(1), 28-47.
  • Auther, Elissa. (2008). Fiber Art and the Hierarchy of Art and Craft, 196080. The Journal of Modern Craft, 1(1), 13-33.
  • Mcgown, K. (2016). Magdalena Abakanowicz at Art_Textiles, the Whitworth Gallery, Manchester, 10 October 2015-31 January 2016. JAWS: Journal of Arts Writing by Students, 2(1), 64. --Theredproject (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All right, that seems pretty clear. I'll withdraw the nomination then. Cheers --06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schuler Books & Music (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)

Sorry, but there is absolutely no indication this essentially local chain, just barely 20 years old, is in any way notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Really hard to view this as anything more than a directory entry. John from Idegon (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some secondary sources from a search (had to do some digging as a couple of their store closings, which don't work for notability, dominated local news): [18] [19] [20] and - while it's possibly the most trivial source of all, I consider it possibly the most important - they report on bestsellers to the Washington Post [21]. Also note the previous AfD was no consensus, but it wasn't the best AfD ever. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A surprising amount of news coverage for a small chain, and the Women's Lifestyle ref is an in-depth history of the store. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you look at source two and source three above (mibiz.com and womenslifestyle.com) share a considerable amount of similar content, leading me to believe that they are probably not completely independent, but generated from a press release. Bookweb is simply a directory entry and wouldn't speak to notability either. John from Idegon (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see it, I'm afraid. And they name different authors and were published a few months apart. There may be a common source, and/or reportorial laziness, but I don't see a reason to discount either. So I've added the MiBiz page as a further reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a stupid decision you all made. It was notable emulator and is even more known now. Why even have this site if you won't let a page grow.

Someone revert this deletion Zorklis (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vita3K (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 emulator, fails WP:GNG. Prod was removed but article author is incorrect about GNG, it needs multiple published sources for notability, not just a single primary source. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clear delete, brand new emulator with no sourcing or possibility of passing GNG. Zero hits in the CSE at WP:VG/S as well. -- ferret (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead, delete if it is all you want.Biel Bestué (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Ferret. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This one's pretty cut and dry. Does not have any assertion of notability. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nom, not notable. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources, no notable at all. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Blight (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)

Apparently a voice actor with no mentions in any reliable secondary sources. Only things I could find were self-published (imdb, etc). Not notable enough to warrant an article, in my opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not finding *anything* at all RS or not, that isn't a mirror of this Wikipedia page. I would be hard-pressed to even prove WP:EXISTS--Theredproject (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't believe that this has been here since 2006! I searched and found nothing! It's truly amazing that somethign that obviously does not satisfy even GNG has been here for so long. (PS: Someone seriously needs to write a vanity script to flag such articles "actor OR singer OR artist OR musician AND living AND under 45 AND no references available from a list of 100 famous reliable sources == flagged!)104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because acting roles are listed — the inclusion test is not "has had roles", but "has received enough reliable source coverage for the having of roles to clear WP:GNG". Like everybody else, I'm finding so little evidence of sourceability beyond Wikipedia mirrors — I can't even find an IMDb profile for him! — that I'm beginning to suspect an outright WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No RS, not notable, and as said Bearcat, not even sure that it WP:EXISTS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity engineering (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)

Tagged as dictdef since 2011, stub, tagged for cleanup since 2009, unreferenced, and poorly written to the point I'm not sure what it is trying to say. RJFJR (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. I've found a few mentions of the term in GBOOKS, but they don't appear to agree on what it means. The single run-on sentence dicdef reads like a PowerPoint nightmare from a marketing consultant, but for the life of me I can't think how it can be improved. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laurell (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)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a musician, whose strongest claim to notability is unsourced and unverifiable: it claims two singles that charted in the Canadian top 40 at both AC and Hot AC, but fails to specify what chart provider those rankings were attained on -- and I can't find verification anywhere else, either. The definitive and notability-conferring Canadian charts for both of those radio formats are found in Billboard, but she doesn't turn up at all in a search there -- and if it was really a single-vendor chart like Spotify or iTunes instead, those are WP:BADCHARTs that cannot confer notability. The only "source" present here at all for anything is a Beatport stream, which is not a reliable source for demonstrating that a musician passes NMUSIC, and I can't find any other reliable source coverage about her anywhere else either. The sourcing needed to get her over GNG simply doesn't exist, and nothing here passes NMUSIC in the absence of proper verification in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable figure, promotional article. Nixon Now (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Confusion in there are apparently 2 singers with he same name. One Canadian, the other American who's only purported success has been in Canada. My search for any evidence of accomplishment on Billboard.com came up with nothing. (I wonder if the unconventional spelling of her name's double "l" causes confusion?) so I agree with the nominator that the claims are unverifiable, although if the claims could be proven this subject would merit WP notability. I researched the three awards the article mentions and they appear to be either industry related or small time--possible the type of awards that are given out to nominees willing to join the organization? It's hard to say for sure, but it sure has that "feel" about it. I know social media following doesn't count for much in determining WP notability because of the abuse in over-inflating, but it's revealing that her followers are meager in comparison. And, yes, it does appear to be promotional by a SPA editor. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, move, and redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Life Membership (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 this is any more notable then any other Honorary Life Membership of any other club or professional body. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete: obviously this should just be a section in International Association for Mathematical Geosciences, with no redirect from such a general term. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the merge now, all the content (and the ref) is now at the parent article, where it belongs. --JBL (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we can delete this one?Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, no, because deleting a page removes its revision history, which violates Wikipedia's licensing rules. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not forbidden "This may not be strictly true since attribution of authorship can be maintained in other ways, but it is troublesome and so a merge and delete is not usually done unless there is a specific and pressing problem with the redirect.", " Redirects are cheap, however, and unless the article title is confusing or objectionable, it may be preferable just to leave it as a redirect to the merge target, in which case the usual interpretation of the licensing requirements requires only that the edit summary about the merge states the name of the article from which the merged information is derived." As this clearly meets one of these criteria that (it is confusing, this is not the only such awarded title in the world) if any thing not deleting this contravenes Wikipedia:Merge and delete.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this page to International Association for Mathematical Geosciences Honorary Life Membership (without leaving a redirect) and then turning that page into a redirect would satisfy all the desiderata (preserving revision history, not confusing search engines). There's probably a less arcane way of achieving the same goal, but I don't know what admins have in their toolkit. XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Move to draft. Needs translating prior to being considered for deletion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Projet Cozak (J-Tech) (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 article (even if properly translated into English) does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It relates in excessive detail the criminal activities of two brothers in Quebec. The crimes are not especially notorious (drugs and firearms possession) and the sources not especially significant. The article appears to be an attempt to publish a defense of the accused, but Wikipedia is not really the proper forum for that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If you had actually read the article you would know that all the accused have been acquitted. There is no crimes being discussed.

The article is well documented and sourced, has made first page newspaper in Quebec multiple times. There is ten's of newspaper articles in Canada and around the world. Accused are now suing the state for 22,5 millions $.

Criminal court case being closed its not even close to an attempt at defense, just reporting facts based on documentation.

Finally, level of details is moderate and is exposing a concerning situation about police investigators in Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacquesCasgrain (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @JacquesCasgrain: Sorry if I misinterpreted the details. I don't read French fluently (this is, after all, the English language Wikipedia), so I had to rely on a Google translation of the article. Nevertheless, nothing you've said here bolsters the claim of notability for this case. It appears to be a run-of-the-mill case of a pair of defendants suing for perceived misconduct of the police. If anything comes of the case (if the case turns into a precedent that becomes widely cited in other Canadian court cases), then it might rise to the point of notability, but not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. It is a notable case for Quebec and its people. Google "Cozak" or "Daniel Cozak"and you'll see all the articles and the interest. I mean its a Ph.D. Chemist being accused of operating the biggest meth lab in america... and he gets aquitted by a stay of procedures... Then again i don't think you were aware of that because you did not read the article.Now that the criminal case is closed a well documented article has its place. I will wait to see the outcome of this deletion request before putting more work into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacquesCasgrain (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Taiwan. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not seeing any notability. The only "source" is not even an external link. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK now the link has been added, still not sure this is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sources are all non-English, so I can't make a judgment on notability. English-language search brings up only building directories. Topic was flagged for deletion only five minutes after being created. It doesn't seem notable but I'd prefer to abstain. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Taiwan. Trivial mentions only. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buraa (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 coords and no geonames hit (there are similar names in other areas). This one is particularly frustrating because there probably is or was a settlement of this name some years back: I found a picture supposedly taken there, and two maps that claim to locate it. But they do not agree where it is, and given that neither of them gives a source I'm reluctant to to let this stand as something that, in the end, is really unciteable. Mangoe (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, my research shows that it's likely there is or was a populated village of this name somewhere in Somalia, but it's unclear where this might be and these maps aren't guaranteed to be correct. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep found a coordinate hit here: https://www.citipedia.info/city/general/Somalia__Gedo_Bura_id_63820 and then reviewed the location on OpenStreetMap here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/3.1697/42.1420; after viewing aerial imagery of the area, there's definitely a populated place at those coordinates. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Hardoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable school; I couldn't find enough coverage about this campus, as almost all coverage I could find was about their sister school in Lucknow. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one source is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, is this a candidate for a redirect in line with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES? Coolabahapple (talk)
  • No, as Schooloutcomes is not a valid argument conform the RFC mentioned on that page. The Banner talk 23:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that he passes NHockey. Page move can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thompson (ice hockey coach) (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: NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mr. Thompson passes WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG despite the poorly written article. A quick glance at his coaching profile on eliteprospects.com will show this. Mr. Thompson has achieved preeminent honours in the EIHL, being top ten in coaching, and receiving multiple Coach of the Year awards. (meets NHOCKEY #3). He also passes GNG by the same measures. Flibirigit (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have rewritten the article and added references for the main claims to GNG. There's a lot more which could be added. Flibirigit (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - being named "EIHL Coach of the Year" in 2004 and 2010 appears to satisfy WP:NHOCKEY criterion #3. Madg2011 (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NHOCKEY is met, although I'm not sure about WP:GNG. The articles listed seem to be more of a routine sports coverage variety (given that he's a coach). I'll admit I didn't do my own search for GNG sources since NHOCKEY was met. Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY #3 as Coach of the Year. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and redirect to Paul Thompson (ice hockey, born 1968), now that was proposed for deletion by SP17. AaronWikia (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - satisfies WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NPERSON though its borderline with GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to William Randolph (disambiguation). Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Randolph III (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 disambig that is about two non notable individuals. Any material worth keeping should be merged into whatever articles their fathers have. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep -- As the creator of this disambig, I obviously have a rationale: The Randolph family of Virginia has many famous members in it, and they owned famous plantations in the Richmond area. Two of them (Wilton House and Tuckahoe Plantation) were owned by two different "William Randolph III" ... but who owned what? Wikipedia should allow the reader to understand history unambigousuly. Thomas Jefferson lived at Tuckahoe as a child. If you check out what links here there are several articles that depend on clear reference to a particular William Randolph III]. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig pages are for situations where a given search might apply to more then one article, these two individuals have no articles. If they are not notable enough for articles they are not notable enough for a Disambig page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but I submit that both men named William Randolph III could have their own stub articles based on their respective plantation houses and their influence on Virginia History as a part of the very powerful Randolph family of Virginia. I don't particularly care if it is a disambig page or simply a stub article that discusses two different people with the same name. In any case, "William Randolph III" is notable and encyclopedic topic, IMHO. EDITED TO ADD William Randolph III is listed on List of members of the Virginia House of Burgesses ... where on wikipedia do we learn which William Randolph III this refers to? Peace, MPS (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, dabs are to help you find the information on Wikipedia that you are looking for, and the subject may have their own article or be mentioned within an article - see MOS:DABMENTION. These has two valid entries, but is probably an WP:INCOMPDAB and so would be best merged/redirected to William Randolph (disambiguation). Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]