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) 00:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Caines[edit]

Rebecca Caines (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)

User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco previously proposed this for deletion. I concur with their assessment: "Fails WP:ARTIST or GNG. Current sources are a university bio and a few primary source project pages. Google finds only a few passing references in independent media, such as passing references to shows." SmartSE (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't see coverage meeting notability requirements. There are some published interviews but a lack of proper reviews, critical analysis, or other third-party sources. The article currently reads very much like it was written by its subject or someone close to her, and so would require rewrites even if sources were found. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the five sources come from two different sources. None of them are independent. A search turns up nothing but a healthy selection of republished autobiographies. Fails all notability tests. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I couldn't find enough WP:RS to establish WP:Artist. Theredproject (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to pass NARTIST. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:26, 27 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) 00:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Curtiss[edit]

Bert Curtiss (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)

Lacks notability. sirlanz 23:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a notable person. WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Collection or collector doesn't appear to have attracted media coverage apart from one event, the fire, which isn't itself notable. Fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The two acceptable sources here just make him a WP:BLP1E, because they both exist only in the context of his barn burning down rather than suggesting that his car collection was the subject of any media attention while it still existed, and the third source is just the routine obituary of his sister, present only to support the name of his wife. This does not constitute evidence that he's earned permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable and fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:28, 27 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. no evidence of notability, self-written and self-promoting vanity page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. bharat sakate[edit]

Prof. bharat sakate (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 is about an author with no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish general notability, nor does the subject meet specific notability for authors. All the books appear to be self-published (Lulu and Bookrix), and I can find no critical coverage of these works in reliable sources. The sources in the article are not independent, or in the case of poemhunter, just leads to the top level domain and is useless. Whpq (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. BLP fails WP:AUTHOR on all counts. Ajf773 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 03:55, 21 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Jean Dolores-Schmidt[edit]

Sister Jean Dolores-Schmidt (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 98 year old nun with some sports connection. My attemp to redirect was reverted. Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She's received a ton of coverage this week from major organizations which probably passes WP:GNG but could also fall short of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:TOOSOON. I'm a non-vote here, but I'd lean keep. SportingFlyer talk 02:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't see anything beyond local notability and human interest stories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's been decent local coverage of her before March Madness this year: [1] [2] [3] This won't pass GNG, but shows she's been notable within that community a long time: [4] SportingFlyer talk 05:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Decent local coverage before hand, but now has a ton of coverage from major organizations and thus probably passes WP:GNG, with examples here, here, and here. If we do keep this, it will need to be expanded. --DTM9025 (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources over many years. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she is a notable nun with more than some sports connection, Chaplain to the men's basketball team for 27 Years, making her the longest Tenured person in Loyola Basketball program History. Plus there head Coach has a page , I believe this makes her more famous than the head coach of Loyola. She also has been an academic advisor, campus minister on LSC and WTC and to Regis Hall residents since 1991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwdamron (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of which make her at all notable outside Loyola University. We have deleted articles on far more notable people than her. At the end of the day, if she wasn't American we wouldn't even be having a debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thr substantial coverage in reliable independent sources makes her notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we've deleted articles on far more notable people, then perhaps our bar on notability is too high. I've seen this happen a lot where articles on subjects that a lot of people know and care about get deleted due to someone selectively declaring it isn't notable on a selective view of notability, especially if the subject is mainly notable in countries outside the U.S. or doesn't have a big online presence (which is not the end all be all) despite being very wide spread. --DTM9025 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She's notable and significant. Where are the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red people to defend this bio? – Athaenara ✉ 15:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since she's a nun I think WikiProject Women in Black would be more apropros yuk yuk.– Lionel^(talk) 02:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deletion tools aren't necessary here. Sister Jean absolutely merits a mention somewhere. She's secured her place in basketball lore, and sources are abundant. We could talk about a merge, but I think this material is fine where it is, rather than trying to cram it into another article. This is a great effort for a brand new user, who hopefully hasn't been scared off from contributing further. (Full disclosure: I went to Loyola!) Zagalejo^^^ 00:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. National media coverage sufficient to establish notability. —Lowellian (reply) 05:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A quick Google search shows multiple national (even international) newspapers talking about the topic.Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Tons of national notoriety. She's the most recognizable star of March Madness this year. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found this 2013 article by the Chicago Tribune profiling Sister Jean. Its existence invalidates the WP:ONEEVENT argument. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - major media coverage extended prior in time to the current notoriety. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Enough articles over the years that seems justified. NapalmSunday (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's extremely rare for me to comment on AfDs that are overwhelmingly so one sided. To be honest, I was a bit on the fence about this one initially. I knew nothing of the subject, but found some additional bits of information which I added a few days ago. I've been following this AfD and additions to the article. It's very clear at this point that she surpasses any concerns regarding WP:BLP1E, as her notability has sustained for some years now. What brings me to comment now, at this late point in the AfD and with it overwhelmingly keep, is this article. This article notes that in the first two weeks of the tourney Sister Jean was the most tweeted about person, and the most mentioned in any news articles of anyone in the tournament (>20,000 stories mentioning her). As Coy Wire said in this interview, Sister Jean is a celebrity. For her to have only a mention (if that) at Loyola Ramblers men's basketball belies the fame she has attained in her own right. The spotlight is certainly brighter now than it ever has been, but it was most decidedly on before this tournament. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She definitely is notable enough for her own article. She has received coverage from ESPN and CNN. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough, well sourced, well covered before the Big 4. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is very notable article, well sourced, and meets Biography of Living Persons policy. Felicia (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough WP:RSs to assure notability. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: ample in depth coverage to satisfy WP:N. – Lionel^(talk) 02:34, 27 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) 00:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda CNola[edit]

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

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A vanity bio that could probably be speedy deleted as an obvious advertisement. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: looks like it's been deleted before, twice [5] --Calton | Talk 08:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. The user's sole edit was this page which appeared under the user's name.Acnetj (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional autobiography ("deft handling" indeed...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to have been created under the name of the original editor not the subject, so should be moved to Anthony Paul Savitsky Ruffino or similar if kept. I'm not entirely sure which combination of names he is known by, but can't find anything to indicate notability, his actions as described don't suggest notability, and as mentioned it's awfully promotional. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Calton. Possible autobiography or paid editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too promotional. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:32, 27 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. Appears to clearly pass GNG threshold. Delete votes have no strong argument, or focus on the weakness of specific sources without explaining why all of them, and there are many, are useless for establishing notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheik Ali[edit]

Sheik Ali (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 core section has been unsourced for a long time despite templates and there are no sources to back the claims. This article made a number of outrageous claims that have already been removed either by me or by others. Clearly not a notable wrestler under the guidelines regarding sourcing in particular - or lack thereof. Article written as a vanity article even though BLP doesn't apply for obvious reasons. I suggest deletion as it can't be improved with sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep sesrching Wadi Ayoub on Google Books serves up a plethora of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Clearly notable. Article just needs some work. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Look again. First page casual mentions, beyond that it's "Wadi" and "Ayoub" separately. Where is your substantial coverage of this particular wrestler? Actually look at the links, don't just count the numbers of them. It's nowhere near as good as you think. 2001:44B8:802:1100:2435:194F:8299:C36C (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again and the coverage is definitely there. See "Wadi+ayoub"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz94fopYPaAhUBca0KHdXEDXMQ6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q="Wadi%20ayoub"&f=false here for example. And the Arab Observer - Page 37 https://books.google.com/books?id=UedXAAAAMAAJ 1962 "The mammoth Hungarian gentleman ( Inset ) who rejoices in the likely name of King Kong actually took a beating last week at the hands of Wadi Ayoub, the Lebanese champion (main picture) in a Beirut match. This was a vengeance return tangle for a hout in Singapore, where — it is claimed — 25 policemen had to assault the ring to break up the wrestli ng pair. In the latest episode King Kong gave up after 25 minutes' mauling and was hauled off to hospital with head wounds.." FloridaArmy (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casual mention only. Once in the whole book (both of them) and one paragraph in the first. How is that substantial? 2001:44B8:802:1100:2435:194F:8299:C36C (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is a casual mention. The first is an entry wntirely about him in Legends of Pro Wrestling: 150 Years of Headlocks, Body Slams, and Piledrivers by Tim Hornbaker and the second source is an excerpt showing the detailed and expansive coverage his boughts received. Keep in mind sources from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s aren't readily available online. Notability is well established. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established. It is a casual mention. Newspaper coverage is available online from that period. So where is it? Singapore loved it's wrestling then. 25 police would have got newspaper coverage. It's not there. Looks to me like kayfabe embelishment that needs back up. And proper back up. You just used two books as well. Just two. 2001:44B8:802:1100:2509:8F4E:9BB6:817C (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the Australian newspaper archive Trove as Ali wrestled there then as well. Using Sheik Ali as a phrase and adding wrestling I got five results and none of them were about him. 2001:44B8:802:1100:34B9:C819:7333:19BE (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consult the book 100 years of professional wrestling in Australia? It has very extensive coverage of Ayoub. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see who wrote it? COI all over that one. 2001:44B8:802:1100:74C9:9DB2:CD3D:3255 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails Notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Some of the existing sources are fine and significantly discuss the subject.[6][7][8][9]. Some sources also refer to him as one of greatest wrestlers in Australia.[10][11] The article also probably passes WP:ENTERTAINER as he has performed in notable wrestling matches.[12] KingAndGod 14:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources listed by KingAndGod constitute significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Previously mentioned sources contain casual mentions only and no significant coverage. Never worked for Stadiums Limited which indicates he wasn't as popular as has been led to believe. Never worked for World Championship Wrestling either (Manspace link is totally wrong). No notable wrestling matches at all proven. Third link from KingandGod biased per IP above noting conflict of interest. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 01:56, 29 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content available behind redirect for merging if desired. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billy O'Neil[edit]

Billy O'Neil (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 "biography" of a fictional footballer. No indication of real-world notability, and no RS found. Many results point to non-notable real people with the same name. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of Dream Team characters Acnetj (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Disagree with moving to the list noted above, that seems to fail WP:LISTN. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). GiantSnowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Dream Team (TV series), as not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Dream Team characters#Footballers - no notability. KingAndGod 14:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Dream Team (TV series), as some content here is salvageable. talk to !dave 15:25, 28 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content available behind redirect for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Naysmith[edit]

Stuart Naysmith (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 "biography" of a fictional footballer. No indication of real-world notability, and no RS found. Some ghits point to non-notable real people with the same name. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). GiantSnowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV series). Not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect - to Dream Team (TV series). Not notable enough to have a separate article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:11, 28 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content available behind redirect for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Naysmith[edit]

Ryan Naysmith (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 "biography" of a fictional footballer. No dedicated RS found. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). GiantSnowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV series). Not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:12, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Guthrie[edit]

Helen Guthrie (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 pass notability requirements. Natureium (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simply being a staffer at the White House is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG — which is especially true when the article doesn't even say what her title was. But there's nowhere near enough sourcing here to get her over GNG — there's one obituary in her hometown newspaper, one primary source government report and the publication details of a book she wrote herself. So it might be possible to get her over WP:AUTHOR as a writer of a book, if that were sourced to media coverage about the book rather than metasourcing the book to itself, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced properly. In addition there's a likely conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "Lawrence S Guthrie". Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Tulsa world gave her a substantial obituary. The Washingtin Post gave more of a blurb. I can't find much else and nothing about the book. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . Fails WP:BIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable person, fails basic criterion for inclusion. We cannot build article based on single obituary since Wikipedia is not WP:MEMORIAL –Ammarpad (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The article was almost certainly created by a family member....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet Notability requirements. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The article's creator has joined the discussion on the article talk page. They've noted some additional sources with coverage such as New Wave : State Flag in DC a Tad Off Color" (Tulsa Tribune, 11/1/1988, p.1) by th Joan Biscupic, this one and this one. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Tulsa obituary is a major one, and other sources in the article and discussed at Talk page do add up. I think it is useful for Wikipedia to answer the question "who is Helen Guthrie" as her name appears in various places, and she is interesting. Editor User:Bearcat and others are providing education to the article creator, about COI and valid sources, which is fine, at Talk page of the article. The creator has been participating in edit-a-thons. Besides the basic validity of the topic IMHO, it would be disruptive to the development of that editor to entirely delete their contributions and also the educational discussion at the Talk page.

We ought to formalize some policy that is newish-editor-friendly, where they get a pass on an AFD automatically, at least for a one-year period, for a topic that is marginal and not blatantly a copyvio or BLP. The topic could go onto some central list to be revisited in a year.

However in this case I do think the topic is notable without cutting any break that way. --Doncram (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Natureium (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged Little Pill (musical)[edit]

Jagged Little Pill (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references; this is really just an advertisement for an upcoming play. Natureium (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A very quick google searches indicated that there was enough sources around to meet WP:GNG. Its notable unsourced or not and I have begun improving the article.Blethering Scot 22:31, 21 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content behind redirect for merging ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Knox[edit]

Eli Knox (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 plot summary. No indication of real-world notability, and ghits point primarily to non-notable real people with the same name. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). GiantSnowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV series). Not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:13, 28 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) 00:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caroguduudley[edit]

Caroguduudley (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)

Somali "town" which, surprise surprise, doesn't exist. The area has quite a few things which look like enclosures or fields and a few tracks but no sign of buildings. No sources, the one link cited describes it as a "locality" which means people don't necessarily live there. Hut 8.5 22:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Another blank space locality with no references outside clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete ANOTHER ONE Nom says it all.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 20:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:47, 24 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content behind redirect for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Hocknell[edit]

Dean Hocknell (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, in-universe "biography" of a fictional footballer. No indication of real-world notability, and no RS found. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). GiantSnowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV series). Not independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:13, 28 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 to Dream Team (TV series). Content remains in history for merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Fletcher[edit]

Karl Fletcher (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 "biography" of a fictional footballer. No indication of real-world notability and no RS found. Some hits point to non-notable real people with the same name. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This may be notable. I'm not familiar with the TV show, but the main character in a series that ran for 419 hour-long episodes might qualify for an article. Even after they killed the character, they reintroduced him as a ghost! There was recent discussion about sourcing elements of television and film, and it was pointed out that the recording itself is a source. Though not listed in our usual referencing style, this article is sourced by the section "Appearances per Season." I agree that the article requires additional citations, and a quick search found hundreds of usable sources so someone could rewrite per MOS:FICT. This seems to be primarily a style issue and not an argument for deletion. The character definitely passes WP:V. I'm unfamiliar with editing for this subject field, so I'll just comment for now and see what others have to say. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all Dream Team players into one article and trim down. There are not many citations between them, list of players for the TV show would be better. Govvy (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge would be good. It just seems like a project to trim this down (sometimes less is more), but that seems tolerable as it needs to be totally rewritten anyway. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). GiantSnowman 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:14, 28 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) 00:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cuunmaraayood[edit]

Cuunmaraayood (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)

Yep, it's another nonexistent Somali town. Unverifiable, nowhere to be found on satellite imagery and down in the one source cited as a "locality", which means people don't necessarily live there. Hut 8.5 22:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nominator says it all 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails V and everything else, Not There.L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:02, 25 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 Dream Team (TV series). Content in history for merge etc like the rest of them ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Alexander (Dream Team)[edit]

Curtis Alexander (Dream Team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a fictional footballer, written like one about a real footballer. No indication of real-world notability (tagged since August 2014) and no RS found. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all articles in Template:Dream Team This is a type of cruft that compares to the worst of children's shows we have here. These characters need to be summed up in one paragraph, not entire articles where we confuse them with real athletes. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series)#Cast, a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). GiantSnowman 17:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. KingAndGod 14:15, 28 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 to Dream Team (TV series). (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harchester United F.C.[edit]

Harchester United F.C. (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 resembles Wikipedia's articles on real football clubs, but it isn't one. It's a detailed fictional history of an entirely fictional club, from the TV series Dream Team. I'd argue the fictional club isn't notable at all by Wikipedia guidelines; but even if it is, this level of detailed coverage isn't justifiable (amongst other things, it violates MOS:INUNIVERSE and WP:NOT). To quote the comments of User:Anna Frodesiak on Talk:Dream Team (TV series) (almost ten years ago!), It is interesting and someone put a lot of work into it, but it is certainly not encyclopedia-worthy. This should be deleted and redirected to Dream Team (TV series). The fictional player biographies in ((Dream Team)) are also probably worth considering for deletion. Robofish (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying contributors: User:RI, User:Timo~enwiki, User:Bornintheguz, User:Differentgravy, User:Ezenden, User:Joe Bamber, User:Psycheout, User:Arsenaldc1988, User:CahirAndIrish, User:Dale Arnett, User:D1502825B, User:Manufan86, User:Lee1981uk, User:JournoBill07, User:KX675, User:Stubbsy89, User:Clyde1998, User:Danhbk, User:Mattyspringltfc, User:Oatesy 07, User:Electric river, User:Mad Bill, User:Ggabot, User:Bogger, User:Latics, User:Sours, User:Mr Hall of England, User:Wonderwizard, User:Footballgy, User:Dan18-12-96, User:Davefelmer, User:Michael Pora, User:Davey2010, User:Smithzy1. Robofish (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also potentially interested are User:Boothman and User:Browncoat101, who commented on the talkpage. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. While it's entirely commendable that someone did go to the effort to create an article resembling a real football club, User:Robofish is correct, in my view, that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. My preferred course of action would be to merge it into the Dream Team article, particularly anything that occurred within the TV programme, as part of a synopsis and backstory for the programme (written in a less factual sounding way) if at all possible. Everything else should be deleted. The player biographies from ((Dream Team)) could be merged into the article, provided that the information meets Wikipedia guidelines. Based on a quick review of these articles, it appears that most are fictional biographies which should be deleted under MOS:INUNIVERSE. Clyde1998 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (possible search term) to Dream Team (TV series) Merge what content is needed into the article and remove what isn't needed. When it comes too all these fictional player bio's merged and trim them all in to an article along the lines of List of Dream Team cast and characters. Govvy (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Dream_Team_(TV_series), a plausible search term but not an independently notable character. Also, this is enWiki not Wikia. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with Dream Team (TV_series). GiantSnowman 17:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 22 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)} 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Palmieri[edit]

John H. Palmieri (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)

Biographical article with no sources independent of the subject. Not obviously more notable than a typical tenured research mathematician. PROD deleted without comment by article creator (SPA and possible COI). JBL (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet any of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A GS h-index of 14 [13] seems decent for pure mathematics, but maybe still on the low side? XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent sources, and I had trouble finding some. The h-index is indeed still on the low side. No significant claim of notability made in the article. talk to !dave 15:22, 28 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 Withdraw. No objection to future nominations, but clearly she is noteworthy for reasons other than being a politician. (non-admin closure) Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Charles[edit]

Helena Charles (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)

Leader of a very small political party with no noticeable success that is focused on a single county of the UK. Therefore fails WP:NPOL. No sources to meet WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it has been pointed out that this person may be more relevant as a poet than a politician, if this is the case the article may well be notable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's not true that there are no sources here at all — what is true, however, is that three of the four sources are books, while the only one I can actually read to directly verify what it says is a primary source that does not assist notability at all. There is a potentially valid claim of notability as a bard and poet here, but it's impossible for me to assess whether she has a strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR or not. So I can't definitively cast a keep or delete here yet — nominator is correct that she has no inherent notability as a politician, but I'd need somebody who actually has direct access to the books to evaluate whether there's enough content about her in the books to get her in the door as a writer before I could make an informed decision one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keeping or at least merging to Mebyon Kernow, which she helped found, may be in order. I am finding discussion about her as a person, such as Charles Thomas talking about her work as editor of New Cornwall and her political beliefs at Gathering the Fragments. The Celto-Cornish Movement and Folk Revival: Competing speech communities talks about her forming a dance school in Truro, though I cannot see much more than that in the snippet view. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced on this bard thing at all, the Gorsedd is a kind of cultural association where people gather seasonally to celebrate traditional culture. These groups also organise festivals. Apparently members of these organizations are divided into three ranks. Ovates, who wear green robes, Bards, who wear blue robes, and Druids, who wear white robes, The druids are higher ranking in the organization than the bards.

This is in my view no more relevant than documenting the carnival organisers in your local town carnival, since it's basically the same thing.

She has written poetry but I can't find evidence of it being published, this is more likely something to do with being a bard (singer/poet), but there does not appear to be much on it in sources.

She has written a political pamphlet (What is home rule?) and edited a local magazine run by her political party (New Cornwall).

sources

• • "History of MK - the 50s and 60s". Retrieved 2008-03-24. - primary source from her political party.
  • Bernard Deacon, Dick Cole, Garry Tregidga, Mebyon Kernow and Cornish Nationalism, Welsh Academic Press, 2003. amazon link - This is fine, but one of the co-authors is a former leader of her politcal party she is part of and I doubt it's independance.
  • Gorseth Byrth Kernow (1967) Bards of the Gorsedd of Cornwall 1928-1967, Penzance: Gorseth - this is not a book, it is a kind of annual from the bardic orgainsation she is part of, this is a newer example.
  • The Cornish Language and Its Literature By Peter Berresford Ellis, p.172 (Accessed on Google Books 24 March 2008). - can't tell if she is substantially covered in this.

In short Bearcat, I can't see this person meeting WP:AUTHOR. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say she does, I said that it's a potentially valid notability claim pending the matter of whether there are solid sources available for that work or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no worries. I thought I ought to fully explain my logic on the situation in case it helped. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:42, 21 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 Procedural decline as created by a banned editor evading blocks, but with no prejudice against a renomination by any legitimate editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wearne[edit]

Jim Wearne (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)

Local singer with no obvious claim to notability. The article was clearly created by the subject. Fails WP:GNG Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 05:03, 21 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) 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nidia Rivera Lopez[edit]

Nidia Rivera Lopez (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)

City councilwoman. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only reliable source coverage is in the local newspaper. Most of that is focused on the election and a false accusation of having her primary residence in another state. Rusf10 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete contrary to what editors seem to think, not every city council member in every city in New Jersey is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this search on her name [14] in The Star Ledger the major regional daily in this area, with three routine hits confirms non-notability, although some council member in a city this large (quarter million) could pass POLITICIAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. City councillors are not automatically presumed notable under WP:NPOL — we accept the city councillors of major metropolitan global cities, but outside of that rarefied class of megalopoli the only other path for a city councillor to get into Wikipedia at all is to show a depth and range and volume of coverage that plainly marks her out as significantly more notable than most other city councillors. But every city councillor in existence could always show as many purely local sources as are shown here, so that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:51, 22 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) 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZY Official[edit]

ZY Official (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's literally nothing out there... I guess other than their thousand or so sound cloud followers.. and 187 Youtube subscribers. A7 hinges on where you draw the line for "credible". GMG^talk 19:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable and was likely done with the intent to promote. Acnetj (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks any sort of coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG easily. -- Dane ^talk 04:44, 27 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) 00:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ovdiyenko[edit]

Chris Ovdiyenko (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 of this biography does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There isn't significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only two of the sources are independent of the subject. One of those (kardify.com) barely mentions him, the other (614columbus.com) is a niche/local publication. The article is the sole work of a single-purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest. The fact that there are 15 external links (!) to the subject's Kickstarter campaigns strongly suggests to me that this article was written primarily for the purpose of raising money and self-promotion. Peacock (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Feels like a promotion for Kickstarter.Acnetj (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete for promotion and not meeting WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG because no WP:RS. A successful Kickstarter does not make you notable...! Theredproject (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there was one middling to poor source (Boing Boing, which is is more of a site for entertainment than reporting). Sources do not establish GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:27, 22 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) 00:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFSGD[edit]

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

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

Nothing in sources here nor on TR Wikipedia. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No refs in the article, google showing nothing although it is hard to look, it is an organisation that promotes voluntary work in Turkey. Szzuk (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 27 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) 00:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Anderson Ellis[edit]

Tyler Anderson Ellis (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 GNG. Non-notable semi-pro athlete. Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete semi-pro athletes rarely generate enough press to gain notability, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Subject does not pass WP:GNG nor any other notability measure I can find for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If the teams he played for aren't notable enough to have an article here, why would he be notable enough to have an article here. His college career was a walk-on so that's not notable enough.Acnetj (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 27 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.

Ocient[edit]

The result was Withdrawn/redirect - Chris Gladwin (engineer) now fleshed out beyond a stub and is an appropriate redirect until/if the company receives additional in-depth coverage. GMG^talk 19:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Looks to me like WP:NOTINHERETED/WP:TOOSOON. The founders may actually be notable. The previous company certainly seems to be. It could probably go either way. For the company, the lions share of the coverage is about startup funding (e.g., [15]) or about the startup funding in addition to being passing mention reference to a press release (e.g., [16]), or about the startup funding and local sources covering Chicago topics (e.g., [17]). Others are more about the founder than the company really (e.g., [18]). Not seeing much that gives me the warm and fuzzies re: WP:CORPDEPTH. GMG^talk 16:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I just created Chris Gladwin (engineer) which should be a suitable merge target. Regards SoWhy 17:17, 20 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) 00:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Calendar Creator[edit]

Photo Calendar Creator (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 product and business with references to articles in minor blogs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no WP:RS to establish notability Theredproject (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete software that has reviews in tech press but looks low key. Szzuk (talk) 07:26, 27 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Yan[edit]

Dennis Yan (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 minor league player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if they meet either of them. DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 21 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. Sandstein 11:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Adoption Platform[edit]

Digital Adoption Platform (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)

Neologism and non-notable software application, with references solely based on the creator of this term. No significant in-depth coverage from non-business related sources were found during BEFORE. Creator has a declared COI with the company WalkMe which appears to have coined the term. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neologism, not a discrete software program. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 27 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) 00:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges and universities participating in ISEP (International Student Exchange Program)[edit]

List of colleges and universities participating in ISEP (International Student Exchange Program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTGUIDE to tell which are participating, if someone is interested goto their website for updated version. Very hard to maintain. Störm (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. International Student Exchange Programs was speedy deleted as spam in 2016. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:LISTN. Just clicking on several of the list entries there appears to be no mention at all of any affiliation with ISEP. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nominator. FITINDIA 07:22, 22 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)} 16:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where Is Najeeb[edit]

Where Is Najeeb (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 non-notable short film, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not a very informative article but the film has coverage in reliable sources such as Patrika (newspaper) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I know your voting history very well and it seems you have insufficient knowledge about sources and our guidelines. The link to Patrika is a primary source and reads like a piece of promotion nothing else. The film was released a year ago (in January 2017) and received zero coverage in reliable sources, received zero full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, no awards at all so I request you to reconsider your vote above. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 03:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-unpersuaded by sourcing. Patrika is the name of several newspapers, and some of the sources are clearly PROMO and blog posts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM. FITINDIA 07:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--per nom.Fails WP:NFILM.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:27, 22 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 to Leoni AG. Best solution. can eventually be expanded into an article if sufficient material is available. TimTempleton would you do the merge? DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast[edit]

Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Was nominated and withdrawn but by my analysis, the references are either broken links, mentions-in-passing or PRIMARY sources, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. There is nothing in the article to provide any indication as to the notability of this company. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising, nor is it a Yellow Pages alternative. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability and fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As per reasons of withdrawn nomination 7 days ago, the provided references are independent and are coming from the secondary sources except for minor ownership claim in the infobox template of article. The "broken link" claim is partially false as there is a problem with website's repository. Until the resolution for this issue is done, the alternative reference was put giving the financial figures of the company and also gives clear indication of notability as it is one of 100 largest business enterprises in Serbia and one of 10 largest employers in Serbia. Therefore, "run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability" claim by the nominator is false. More than two thirds of current references are in line with WP:NCORP. The other third are references for financial figures, business ID or Tax ID. In my opinion, the whole nomination is full of incorrect and false persuasions which lack grounding in facts.--AirWolf ^talk 15:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AirWolf, it appears that you are saying that Leoni is notable because it is one of the 100 laegest business enterprises in Serbia and one of the 10 largest employers in Serbia. If you can find a reference that is intellectually independent and states that Leoni is notable for that reason, please provide it here - otherwise it is just an opinion (yours?) that says "This is why Leoni is notable". Of the 10 references in the article, the first three are broken. Also, a common mistake many people make is by stating that the references are "independent" or "secondary sources". While this is sufficient for supporting facts and information within an article, this is not sufficient for establishing notability of a topic. Not only must sources be independent and secondary, but they must also provide independent content and not rely extensively on information produced/provided/published by the company. This N1info.com reference would fail as a reliable source since it has no accredited journalist/author - regardless, it is based on a company announcement and relies extensively on quotations from Klemens Sax, general manager for Serbia. It therefore fails both WP:RS and WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference is a bare-bones company listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference from dw.com is a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This blic.rs reference has no accredited journalist and fails WP:RS - regardless, the article was written in relation to Serbia's Minister of Finance and Economy opening a new Leoni factory and is based on a company announcement (and PR exercise), fails WP:ORGIND. This blic.rs reference is similarly an article written at the opening of a Leoni factory and is little more than a PR exercise and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this N1info reference is covering the exact same factory-opening ribbon-cutting PR exercise and also fails WP:ORGIND. Article must have intellectually independent content to meet the criteria for establishing notability and these articles fail on that single point. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Sir, what is your intention by giving misleading statements? "Of the 10 references in the article, the first three are broken." - the second reference is not broken, and it, among other things, replaces (for the reason given above) two "broken link" references which both back only four financial figures (revenue, net income, assets, equity). The reference citing company's listing in infobox template was added once the notability was verified. Per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE, the company is notable, as it has been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Also, the n1info.com and blic.rs references are not based on a "company announcement", but based on coverage by the national news agencies. Facts related to the annual financial figures, annual lists of the biggest gross/net exporters of Serbia and number of employees (all given by the independent sources) are all supporting to the notability of this topic, i.e. company.--AirWolf ^talk 18:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AirWolf, the link wasn't working yesterday but thank you, it is working OK now and I was able to download the PDF. As I've already pointed out above, the standard set for establishing notability is a higher standard than that for supporting a claim within an article. Nobody is arguing that the sources are not independent secondary sources. The point is that they are not intellectually independent, which is a requirement for establishing the notability of organisations. The downloaded PDF is a Serbian government publication based on published annual financial statements and contains no independent opinion or analysis, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing I'm sorry, but this statement: "The downloaded PDF is a Serbian government publication based on published annual financial statements and contains no independent opinion or analysis" is incorrect. In accordance with the Law on Auditing of the Republic of Serbia [19] (in Serbian) and further explained on the website of the Agency for Business Registers of the Republic of Serbia (here [20] (in Serbian)), every company operating on the territory of Serbia which annual revenues exceed 4.4 million euros are obliged by law to have their financial reports revised by the independent accounting firms. Further, only audited financial reports which are subsequently analyzed and checked by the Agency for Business Registers, can be published by the governmental agencies and institutions in various forms. One such document was provided in the reference of this article. So, it clearly is in accordance with WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.--AirWolf ^talk 14:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AirWolf .. I'm not sure what exactly I said that was incorrect. It is a government publication based on published annual financial statements - whether they've been audited or not is immaterial, the Serbian legal system is not our concern. I believe you are missing the point though. Nobody is doubting the accuracy of the figures but essentially, you are saying that every company whose accounts are checked by the Agency for Business Registers in Serbia and subsequently published by the annual government report is notable and meets the criteria for notability. That is not the case. It may be an indication that the company might be notable but it doesn't mean it is automatically notable (same as companies that are floated on a stock exchange are not automatically notable). We still need two references that are "intellectually independent" and contain independent content. None of the references you have provided meets this criteria. Every company that has its accounts audited could claim that their accounts have been independently verified but this doesn't make it an intellectually independent reference. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Once again, you are interpreting my words wrongfully and giving misleading conclusions. I have never said that the notability is tested if the company has audited financial reports, and later published by the relevant governmental agency. As our views regarding "intellectually independent" references (concerning WP:ORGIND) are diametrically opposite (as per reasons given above) with no indication of reaching consensus, and as evidenced in repeated false and misleading statements, I will stop discussing with you the matter of article's notability and reliability of its references. However, I am open to opinions from other users.--AirWolf ^talk 17:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The place to cover this would be at the parent article Leoni AG IMO. Number 57 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or merge to Leoni AG The best sources here are really focused not on the company but on the government subsidies (eg the DW ref) which are not even discussed here; the page is written more like a directory entry than something people can learn from about the state of industry or doing business in Serbia. Most of the refs are not independent at all (eg company reports or the government report summarizing the company report) or churnalism. The URLs in 2 of the refs don't work for me either. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I have deleted these "broken-link" references. If you look above in a discussion carefully, I have replied that I have added valid link as replacement for the financial figures and other statements, until the resolution for links to website's repository is found.--AirWolf ^talk 11:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if this is one of the top employers in Serbia it is notable. However it may be better handled in the parent co page. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge up to Leoni AG as parent company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Premeditated Chaos Number 57 Legacypac Just a little notice, as I'm seeing a couple of merge opinions. When it comes to notable subsidiaries (mainly outsourcing subsidiary companies in foreign countries as is the case here or doing business in foreign markets), there are several examples where there are existing articles about the main company and also its subsidiaries, just like it is a case with Telenor and its subsidiaries - Telenor (disambiguation) (for quick overview). Thanks for the previous proposals!--AirWolf ^talk 09:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't find the deleting voices convincing at all. Apart from refs already in the article, it's pretty easy to find coverage of the company across a spectrum of Serbian media:
  • "Saradnja kompanije Leoni i niških fakulteta" [Cooperation of Leoni and faculties from Niš]. Radio Television of Serbia.
  • "„Леони" повећава производњу" [Leoni raises production]. Politika.
  • "FABRIKA LEONI USKORO NA RATARSKOM IMANJU, IZGLASALI GRADSKI VEĆNICI" [Leoni Factory soon on the Ratarsko Imanje venue, as voted by the city council]. RTV Kraljevo.
  • "Počela sa radom treća fabrika Leonija u Srbiji" [Third Leoni's factory in Serbia commenced operation]. Radio Television of Vojvodina.
  • "Vučić: Leoni postao najveći poslodavac u Srbiji, Niš će u 2018. doživeti "bum"" [Vučić: Leoni has became the largest employer in Serbia...]. Blic.
  • "I četvrta fabrika: 5.000 radnika - iz Kraljeva za Mercedes" [And the fourth factory: 5000 workers from Kraljevo for Mercedes]. B92.

and there are countless others, this was just a scratch from the top. Notability must be judged according to the breadth of total coverage, not just the one currently in the article, otherwise we should delete 80% of our articles. One does not have to cite-bomb a short article with hundreds of such just to prove the notability, I hope. No such user (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you clearly did just grab stuff, regardless of whether it was independent reporting or churnalism. This is not helpful in a consideration of notability. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you clearly just scream "churnalism" without even trying to investigate. Do you speak the language? Have you at least tried Google translate? Did you even check our articles about publishers? That is not helpful in a consideration of notability. No such user (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources and used google translate - churnalism is obvious in any language. Please bring high quality independent sources when you work in WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: First of all, people don't work on Wikipedia, they contribute. Obviously, there is only one concern in article's references even though there is significant coverage in news, and that is presence of churnalism in some of article's sources, namely WP:ORGIND violation is questionable - "any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)". In my opinion, there is no evidence of great presence of PR material, and also there are a couple of sources that are fully in accordance with the following statement - "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".--AirWolf ^talk 11:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No true Scotsman, Jytdog? AFD is not cleanup. At AFD, keep !voters are supposed to prove that the company has broad coverage in sources (the definition of notability), not to necessarily put forward sources that espouse critical views. Yes, like several other companies in the industry, Leoni has been criticized for exploiting cheap labor, pursuing political connections for subventions, and inhumane treatment of workers. To keep you happy, here's a couple:

• "Na poslu padamo u nesvest, ni do toaleta nam ne daju" [We faint on work, they don't let us go to toilet]. Press.
• "Grad gde se motaju kablovi" [City where cables are rolled up]. Deutsche Welle.
• "Puna hala radnika kada dođe Vučić" [The hall is full of workers only when Vučić comes]. Danas.))
• "Sigurne investicije i nova radna mesta, ili Potemkinova sela" [Secure investments and new employment, or Potemkin villages]. Danas.
• "LEONI – TUŽAN POGLED IZ HALE I IZRABLJIVANJE RADNIKA (II DEO); OD PONEDELJKA SE UVODE SMENE OD 12 SATI!" [Leoni - a sad view from the hall and exploitation of workers (part II) - 12-hour shifts introduced from Monday]. Novosti Dana.

No such user (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is volunteer work. It is work. It it takes time and care. And User:No such user, please review WP:ORGCRIT -- sources need to be independent and have substantial discussion to "count" toward N. Please bring only that kind of source to AfD. And btw we just finished an RfC to significantly clarify the definition of sources that count toward N in a discussion of companies Please do review WP:ORGCRIT (yes I know it is work to go read that and think about it  :) ) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I did review ORGCRIT (not that there is something radically new). Now, would you grant that at least a few of these 673 hits on the Radio Television of Serbia (the national broadcaster), the first ~30 solely about Leoni, count as Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary?There are several duplicates because of bad handling of Latin/Cyrillic in search, but still. No such user (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaging further with you here: i appreciate that you have at least acknowledged that the kinds of sources matter, but you have left your previous justifications all unstruck, and posted just yet another lazy search result. Please stop adding noise into this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete to parent company. From the article Leoni AG might not be notable either so would not be a valid merge target.
  Looking through the sources presented above;
  1. About subject. Translation reads like a hatchet job. Question about whether PressOnline.rs is a reliable source. If reliable it is enough to base a few lines on but not an entire article, particularly considering its perspective.
  2. Passing mention. Primarily about the city
  3. Probably a good source but not much coverage. It borders on ROUTINE. No reason to have stand-alone article based on this
  4. A passing mention. Primarily about economic plan
  5. A couple letters. No independent reporting. No contribution to notability as required by NORG

I see nothing which would overcome the deficiencies in the other sources. Certainly nothing which can overcome the guidelines presumption of/preference for dealing with subsidiaries within the parent company's article. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Are you analyzing sources from this diff, which include Radio Television of Serbia, Radio Television of Vojvodina, Politika, Blic and B92? While I could grant that they might be routine and/or influenced by politics, those are the top echelon of Serbian media; RTV coverage is very detailed and in neutral tone, for one. The sources you're talking about are the ones that are critical and/or skeptical about the company, and I could agree there is a mixed bag.

I couldn't care less about this particular article, but I can't resist the impression about double standards being employed here, and a lots of no true Scotsman arguments: sources already in the article are dismissed as "insufficient", sources from top mainstream media as "churnalism", and ones critical about the company as "unreliable" or "passing". No such user (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on the ones from [21]. If you are talking about my commentary, I did not say the critical source was unreliable I questioned the publisher because at least in translation, the tone of the article is sensationalist — maybe it is RS maybe not. I would want a native speaker to make that call. I also said that the tone would not allow us to base an article on it alone but it would, if RS, be usable in the merged article. As to the other sources I reviewed, I do not know what double standard you are talking about. No matter the situation I would have made the same assessment of the sources.

I believe some of the issues you are seeing with sourcing comes from the new sourcing considerations in the revised WP:ORGIND. However, from what I have seen in the ones I have looked at, even if the sources being dismissed as 'churnalism' were accepted they would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article. That would require some very in-depth and indisputably high-quality sources. If the Leoni AG article were stronger I would have !voted a straight Merge. Jbh ^Talk 16:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: "However, from what I have seen in the ones I have looked at, even if the sources being dismissed as 'churnalism' were accepted they would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article." I'm interested on what grounds someone determines that subsidiary companies should exclusively be addressed in their parent company articles and not to have separate articles. What about Telenor's subsidiaries? Also, you have evaded to answer the last section of User:No such user's previous comment.--AirWolf ^talk 17:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly stated my opinion on the sources I specified. I have evaded nothing. I may not have given an answer you want to hear or which you disagree with -- well I did not explicitly state that 'a passing mention is a passing mention' but I assure you I apply the same standard for that here as elsewhere.

As to your other question please see the first point in WP:BRANCH. Re Telenor's subsidiaries some of those articles may be justifiable based on SPINOUT but stuff like Telenor Avidi should not have an article. However as far as this AfD is concerned please see OTHERSTUFF. Jbh ^Talk 17:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: I'm not talking about that single (former) subsidiary article (with total of 2 sentences). There are more than 10 Telenor's subsidiaries that clearly are not Telenor's corporate spin-off and are in contradiction with your statement that "subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article" only. I'm asking how one determines that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article only. You have made a ridiculous statement and later called upon WP:OTHERSTUFF. It was never my intention to involve other examples just to justify this subsidiary. I'm calling you on that statement. Also, I respect all the opinions and arguments, but also sometimes need clarification for some of the arguments.--AirWolf ^talk 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: For example, WP:BRANCH is pretty good argument for further discussion in my opinion. As stated here: "unless they (notable subsidiaries) are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area.", the focus in a discussion should continue to be examination of given sources.--AirWolf ^talk 17:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AirWolf: The sources are a bit difficult to engage with because nearly all are are in Serbian (which I note tends to support the lack of coverage 'beyond the local area') but what I would suggest, if you want to dig deeper into them, is to first apply the truth table at WP:ORGCRIT to, say, the five sources you think support notability. Since editors are pretty entrenched I would suggest a short comment on how you read each requirement ie what you consider significant etc. This will give a base line — actually two. The first is a common group of sources to work from. The second is explicit definition of how you interpret the ORGCRIT criteria. My guess is that the sticking points will be on how each editor sees the elements of ORGCRIT. From there at least everyone is discussing the same things in the same terms.

That all said, I do not know if such analysis would change the minds of those who are saying Merge. In my case, as I mentioned, it would take some really in-depth reporting on this subject. Enough that it overshadows the parent (That might not be hard if the current state of the parent reflects the actual coverage. If the parent is not notable I would more readily accept a stand alone article on the subsidiary.) or sources, at least one of which meets ORGCRIT backed up by some other lower level reporting, from outside of the Balkans.

I do not see discussion of the Telenor family of articles as being productive for two reasons: first is OTHERSTUFF ie it does not matter what was done elsewhere; the second, expanding on the first, is that the two are not analogous. The depth and breadth of sourcing differs as does the length of the individual articles so the arguments are not really transferable. Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: What is in your opinion the definition of "local area" (in context of subsidiaries in general - for noninternational and international companies) and what are the guidelines when you are determining that? Also, when you are suggesting for non-Serbian or non-Balkans reporting and sources, are you saying that the subsidiary company of large international company needs to be globally important or famous in order to have an article on Wikipedia (which contradicts WP:ORGSIG)?--AirWolf ^talk 21:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AirWolf: I can not think of a way to generalize without writing an essay but I can give a rough idea of my thinking. In this and similar cases I would say coverage needs to be by media outside the country/region where the subsidiary is headquartered. That is where one would expect any news minimally worthy of notice to be reported. (I guess that is as good a working definition of 'local' as any — The tier of media one could reasonably expect normal reporting of the subject to occur at.) There would also need to be enough 'local' coverage to flesh out a stand-alone article. Simply having a bit of 'non-local' coverage is not necessarily sufficient if everything can still be covered in a paragraph or two. A large amount of 'local' coverage on diverse matters that could not be properly explored in the parent's article would also weigh towards a spin-off. While the other end of the scale is if coverage were so great as to completely overshadow the parent such that the parent is only discussed in context of the subsidiary then there might be an article on the subsidiary and not the parent per NOTINHERRITED. It is a balancing act with the presumption, per BRANCH, being to address subsidiaries in the parent's article.

Part of the problem here is the parent article is, frankly, crap so it is hard to tell if the last of those situations might be the case. Another issue is that many of the sources for this article have been challenged as not meeting ORGCRIT/ORGIND. I would hazard that there may be issues of ORGDEPTH as well depending on which ones/how many end up passing ORGCRIT. For a Merge there is no need for this topic to meet ORGCRIT or ORGDEPTH or ORG anything. The sources just need to meet RS.

I do not know if that helped you understand my reasoning or not and I know there are a lot of if's and but's etc which can poke holes in this. It is not my intention to present a brief, rather I hope to simply outline my thinking in broad strokes. Jbh ^Talk 23:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to a section in the parent article, Leoni AG, and pick up anything useful from the sources listed at this AfD. The suggested target is rather sparse, so this content (in a much condensed form, i.e. a couple of paras) would improve the target. This is a subsidiary, so it's appropriate to address the topic in the parent article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - leaning towards merge and redirect, due to limited English sources, but I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be an article about this company on the Serbian Wikipedia. [[22]]TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: What are you trying to say in the latter part of your sentence?--AirWolf ^talk 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AirWolf: - I look at a lot of things when determining notability, to be fair. And I don't speak Serbian, so I'm not qualified to judge the sources. I went to see if Leoni's Serbian Wikipedia article was sourced better than this one, just in terms of quantity. I routinely do this for AfD when the articles are heavily sourced with foreign language publications. I was surprised to see there isn't a Serbian article. I'm familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and how it can be interpreted to say "don't judge an article by what else is or isn't out there," but I find it strange that a notable Serbian company wouldn't be on the Serbian site before an article is created on the English version. It's just one other thing that argues against the subject's notability, IMHO. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: If that's how one determines topic's notability, based on topic's existence on different language editions of Wikipedia, may the Lord help us all. Also, let me remind you that Google Translate - a truly wonderful Google service app - was launched 11 years ago.--AirWolf ^talk 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one other thing that argues against the subject's notability, but ultimately, the article doesn't need the Lord's help - just a few good sources to pass WP:GNG. Right now it doesn't. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:38, 29 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. Speedy deleted by Deor, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streamliner Lines[edit]

Streamliner Lines (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 company. This is a bus company that apparently consists of a single vehicle and a single driver (see here) that is possibly not currently authorized to operate (see same source), whose timetable indicates they have not yet even started operations. All sources in the article are primary, and no significant secondary sources can be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, concur with nom. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Created by SPA for promotion of the company.MB 15:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think this bus is notable. Maybe toosoon. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, but as Prince of Thieves said, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. I find no significant third-party coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Apologize for creating article WP:TOOSOON. SwadianH (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SwadianH: No worries, could you consider putting ((Db-g7)) on the article to allow this to be speedy closed? Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves: WILCO SwadianH (talk) 20:17, 20 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) 00:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Williams (politician)[edit]

Lesley Williams (politician) (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)

Local county level English politician who does not meet WP:NPOL. I don't see enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, especially considering that what there is is routine coverage. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. I would agree that this article is borderline notable. Does having a CBE infer notability? Jason.nlw (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CBE would, but she only has an MBE, two levels below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MBE does not confer notability, unless it was awarded by a Royal Personage, which in this case it was not. My understanding is that the OBE would confer presumed notability, along with the higher ranks of the Order of the British Empire which are the CBE, K/DBE and GBE. The MBE is the lowest level and awarded fairly routinely to several thousand people a year for long service to the public. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't make any difference who physically awarded it. They all come from the same source and are awarded by the Crown. The OBE isn't generally considered sufficiently notable on its own either. The CBE and above are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I saw this a few days ago and questioned it, but I left it because I'm not British and wasn't sure about the notability standards for the MBE. But if the MBE isn't considered an inherently notable distinction, then she doesn't have grounds for inclusion at all — county councillor is not an office that automatically passes WP:NPOL, and the sourcing isn't getting her past NPOL #2 as a "more notable than the norm" special case: it's far too dependent on primary sources and routine local coverage which is simply expected to exist for all county councillors, and the only source that expands beyond the purely local just namechecks her existence a single time in the process of not being about her. All of which means that none of the sources are cutting it in terms of making her a notable county councillor. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on Necrothesp. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 02:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. FITINDIA 07:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:40, 22 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) 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MakeAQuiz.net[edit]

MakeAQuiz.net (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)

N-site with no notability. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Source searches are only providing passing mentions in rs; fails WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 27 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. WP:G5. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Action Raja (2017 Film)[edit]

Action Raja (2017 Film) (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)

Already been deleted 5 times as Action Raja and still no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. The article was deleted recently but again it was recreated using different account by the same user. PROD-contested by an anonymous IP address without comment whom I'm assuming is the article creator. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:32, 20 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) 00:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Crosby[edit]

Caleb Crosby (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:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO. The three reference verify the same 2 facts. Insufficient coverage scope_creep (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom, the citations we have are routine and one-time transactions. Where's the biographical beef? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a president of a think tank is not a position that confers notability, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 24 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) 00:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Kanojiya[edit]

Prashant Kanojiya (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)