< 23 March	25 March >

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

The result was delete. czar 00:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability in Anglesey[edit]

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

WP:NOT PAPERS Adam9007 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which, as Szzuk has mentioned, are very similar. There are no "Sustainability in..." articles for any counties anywhere other than Wales, suggesting some kind of coordinated project. (There are already deletion discussions for similar articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainability in Pembrokeshire and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainability in monmouthshire.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An essay, several of these sustainability articles in Welsh counties have been created and nominated recently. There isn't anything to salvage or redirect that I can think of. Szzuk (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are essays, written to publicise their authors' views on a subject, not objective articles. In fact they look to me like use of Wikipedia by the respective county councils to promote their work. Also, totally parochial. We do not have separate articles on general topics such as "sustainability" for each county or equivalent local government area in the world, nor should we. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic articles with viewpoint from author written in essay format. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really great essay, but has no place in an encyclopedia. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ESSAY. Calm Omaha (talk) 16:06, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Zimmerman[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF. jps (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. 79616gr (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I do not, as a rule, do WP:PROF discussions, because it seems to me that the standard is too low. But a quick look seems to show that this fellow is routinely cited whenever Heidegger's name comes up these days: GScholar shows 500-odd cites for Heidegger's Confrontation With Modernity alone, and while it appears that some of those are spurious, I do not get the sense that this fellow is obscure. Mangoe (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 8 publications with over 100 cites in GS seems to pass WP:Prof (whatever integral theorist is). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The standard for WP:PROF is fundamentally objective, being essentially the standard used by first rate universities for full professor, the highest ordinary rank. This is similar to how other professions are handled--artists, for example are judged by the standards set by major museums for their collections. He meets it unambiguously.

the actual problem here is that some fields of the humanities seem to have a self-contained almost cult-like status, and Integral Theory is one of them. It is very difficult to deal with a article in these fields without using related sources which are suspect of having undue emphasis. The only way we can deal with it is to accept that the works of people in any closed group will be of concern mainly to those of that group, which may be very large, as for some religions, and where there is consequently no difficulty in showing notability , or very small, where they can be much more difficulty.

Fortunately, Zimmermann works in an area which is also studies outside of his own theoretical orientation, the mainstream philosopher Heidigger, and has academic appointment in institutions of general excellence. This removes the usual difficulties. We need not therefore take into consideration the possible fringe nature of integral theory--to the extent that I understand its direction, it is one where I have no personal interest or sympathy whatsoever, but that doesn't affect the decision here. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 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. czar 00:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda Curtis[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No notable contributions to the genre. The award category, Starlet of the Year, of the Venus Award is not significant. The rest are nominations. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 1999 Venus Award.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claimed trade show award is not a reliable indicator of notability, is sourced only to the performer's promotional website, and is not documented by the official site. In the absence of any other substantive reliable sourcing, there's virtually nothing here to sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:22, 31 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. Keep arguments do not reflect policy based arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey Bernard Larson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLPFRINGE. Not enough notice for a Wikipedia article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey B. Larson jps (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPFRINGE concerns living persons, therefore objection by jps is irrelevant to Dewey B. Larson.

While taking care to guard against possible implications of real-life harm to the reputation of a living person is not a concern here, the general point that this is the biography of a non-notable person stands. jps (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Click show to see five points made to me via e-mail by User:Pictorex (published here with his permission). I have lightly edited some of the writing, but hope this fairly represents his position on the matter of notability. Note that I am not convinced by his arguments, but would like to provide the opportunity for him to make them and he preferred to have me post them on his behalf as he is not comfortable contributing to Wikipedia directly.jps (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBL’s notability is sufficiently established not just by numerous book reviews, some quite extensive, cited in the article. Some of the book reviews were quite in-depth (Indian Journal of Physics, review of Quasars and Pulsars). The Case Against the Nuclear Atom was reviewed by Isaac Asimov. The journal Reciprocity, which published contributions building on the theoretical structure for some two decades. This journal had no connection to DBL other than the editors’ willingness to accept for publication articles building on the theoretical structure established by him, which other journals rejected as a matter of policy. Reciprocity provided a platform for publication of papers relating to his work, some of them critical. Publisher was a bona-fide registered scientific society. Reciprocity was known to its subscribers, of which there were about 1500 at its peak. Providing a platform for researchers was a necessity since standard journals would not even consider contributions not based on the standard assumptions. the work of Dr. K.V.K. Nehru of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, building on as well as criticizing/revising DBL’s work satisfies the notability criterion. K.V.K. Nehru’s work was noticed by those who read it, or at least purchased the journal in which it was published, i.e., many thousands. He was not a famous person but a professor at a respectable university in India, thus known to fellow faculty and students, not to a wider public. an entirely independent journal, Frontiers of Science, published a lengthy article by DBL (Vol III, No. 5, July-August, 1981). Frontiers of Science was a typical popular glossy magazine catering to a lay audience interested in unconventional ideas. Elizabeth Philip, the editor, thought Larson’s article interesting enough to publish as a cover story. Publisher was Bill Bonner. They also published on Velikovsky, the Rosewell Incident, etc. Frontiers of Science was admittedly a “fringe” publication, but the “fringe” it served was obviously quite large, as it had a reasonably wide circulation, thus satisfying the notability criterion. They had a niche readership and catered to it. Publisher is still active by the way: http://theagora.com/about-bill-bonner/ Also notable is "The Ra Material: An Ancient Astronaut Speaks (Law of One)", published in the early 1980s, widely read and still in print; it includes an endorsement of DBL’s system of theory. Yes, it’s all nonsense, something we can probably agree on, but it was very popular and influential in its day and still gets a sizable audience.

Click show to see five points made to me via e-mail by User:Pictorex (published here with his permission). I have lightly edited some of the writing, but hope this fairly represents his position on the matter of notability. Note that I am not convinced by his arguments, but would like to provide the opportunity for him to make them and he preferred to have me post them on his behalf as he is not comfortable contributing to Wikipedia directly.jps (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBL’s notability is sufficiently established not just by numerous book reviews, some quite extensive, cited in the article. Some of the book reviews were quite in-depth (Indian Journal of Physics, review of Quasars and Pulsars). The Case Against the Nuclear Atom was reviewed by Isaac Asimov.
The journal Reciprocity, which published contributions building on the theoretical structure for some two decades. This journal had no connection to DBL other than the editors’ willingness to accept for publication articles building on the theoretical structure established by him, which other journals rejected as a matter of policy. Reciprocity provided a platform for publication of papers relating to his work, some of them critical. Publisher was a bona-fide registered scientific society. Reciprocity was known to its subscribers, of which there were about 1500 at its peak. Providing a platform for researchers was a necessity since standard journals would not even consider contributions not based on the standard assumptions.
the work of Dr. K.V.K. Nehru of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, building on as well as criticizing/revising DBL’s work satisfies the notability criterion. K.V.K. Nehru’s work was noticed by those who read it, or at least purchased the journal in which it was published, i.e., many thousands. He was not a famous person but a professor at a respectable university in India, thus known to fellow faculty and students, not to a wider public.
an entirely independent journal, Frontiers of Science, published a lengthy article by DBL (Vol III, No. 5, July-August, 1981). Frontiers of Science was a typical popular glossy magazine catering to a lay audience interested in unconventional ideas. Elizabeth Philip, the editor, thought Larson’s article interesting enough to publish as a cover story. Publisher was Bill Bonner. They also published on Velikovsky, the Rosewell Incident, etc. Frontiers of Science was admittedly a “fringe” publication, but the “fringe” it served was obviously quite large, as it had a reasonably wide circulation, thus satisfying the notability criterion. They had a niche readership and catered to it. Publisher is still active by the way: http://theagora.com/about-bill-bonner/
Also notable is "The Ra Material: An Ancient Astronaut Speaks (Law of One)", published in the early 1980s, widely read and still in print; it includes an endorsement of DBL’s system of theory. Yes, it’s all nonsense, something we can probably agree on, but it was very popular and influential in its day and still gets a sizable audience.

Delete. Nothing changed from the first afd, refs don't stack up. Szzuk (talk) 19:03, 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 delete. czar 00:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Gagnon[edit]

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

No indication of WP:GNG notability that is evident by in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly delete -- We ought not to have an article on a founding pastor, where there is no article on his Next Level Church (New England). This may be a large church, and an incipient denomination, but does not seem to ne large enough to be a megachurch yet. There is an article on Next Level Church, Charlotte, North Carolina, which may be unconnected. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please also see related discussions at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Joshua Gagnon and Talk:Joshua Gagnon. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 4 refs, 2 of which are weak, 2 don't mention him. He led the expansion of a church but its not enough. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 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 delete. czar 00:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaoguo instrument[edit]

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

Unsourced, unlinked, and I can't find anything. Likely a WP:HOAX. Timmyshin (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, "xiaoguo" can mean "sound effect", which might be related to this article. [1] That being said, I haven't been able to find anything on the subject, and if the Chinese wikipedia doesn't have an article on it, I don't think we'll find something in English for it. (Disclaimer: I don't know a single word of Chinese) Acebulf (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one-sentence unsourced, unverifiable, newly created stub, should be speedy deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 17:15, 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 delete. czar 00:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Hai Teen Khurafaati[edit]

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

Non-notable film. There are lots of sites that merely confirm this film exists, but I could find no significant coverage or reviews; nothing that comes remotely close to the requirements of WP:NFILM. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could only find passing by mentions, nothing that indicates significance or meets WP:NFILM. Mr RD 00:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N. Neither the director nor the cast is notable. Harsh Rathod 08:40, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates American Football League[edit]

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

PROD removed. "non-professional league for amateurs" says it all. Fails inclusion standards amd just promotional by a SPA. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought this was a clear delete myself going in, but I switched my position when I clicked on the "News" link in the template above, and found oodles of articles. I'll admit I don't recognize the sources there since I don't live in that part of the world... but I'm willing to assume good faith in those sources. Because of the volume of coverage the league gets, I'm looking at a clear pass of WP:GNG and then realize the article needs to be edited and sources added instead of removed from the encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of articles, which could probably have been seen with WP:BEFORE, not sure on reliability but will assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTM9025 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe D. Dowdy[edit]

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

Notability concerns with this article. The only notable or newsworthy rationale I could find for keeping it is because of Dowdy’s abrupt replacement by ~~Chaos~~ Mattis in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and that’s already mentioned in the main article for the regiment. Sierrak28 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sierrak28 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass on SOLDIER (though close). Most of the coverage, which is LASTING (particularly with Mattis's subsequent appointment) is of a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E nature - being relieved of command by Mattis during battle. Coverage of this is mainly focused on Mattis's decision (as an example of his willingness to take steps others currently don't and his decisiveness) and not on Dowdy. This coverage is already present in Jim Mattis, and there is little need to duplicate it here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article; trivial and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable under WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. If he had accomplished something notable with NASA, I'm sure that agency would have included it in his bio. Note: Renaming Mattis to "Chaos" without context doesn't help.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Whoops. Sierrak28 (talk) 22:10, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurumi Morishita[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being listed #64 in a fan poll (out of 100) is not a claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:30, 26 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoro Amano[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:38, 26 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qabiilaqarshe[edit]

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

Somali "town" which doesn't exist. Satellite imagery shows no traces of settlement near the claimed coordinates. There is a town to the south but it's called Garowe. The one source cites is a database entry which lists it as a "locality", this just means some sort of place and doesn't mean anybody lives there. Unverifiable. Hut 8.5 19:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as yet another unverifiable locality. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not There, V, GN single G. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a place and not a town - FailS WP:SIGCOV. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:03, 31 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avery (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Article was created in April 2011, and survived a speedy delete and PROD in quick succession due to claims of notability. At the time Avery was being touted as "the next big thing", but seven years on, her music career appears to have amounted to very little. As far as I can tell, she was signed at the age of 15 in November 2010 by Universal Music after an music executive saw her on YouTube. Following two failed singles, she left Universal after just twelve months and signed with Island Def Jam, but this doesn't appear to have been a successful move either, and by 2013/4 she was back to releasing music on her SoundCloud and social media accounts. The last songs mentioned in the article are from 2014: the only songs I can find of hers since then are covers of various songs by Shawn Mendes, Swedish House Mafia and Green Day, all on social media. The official website that is archived in the article is now dead and the domain up for sale. Looking at her Twitter and Instagram posts, it appears she has more or less given up the music career and is focusing on being a model instead. Richard3120 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ugly Brewing Company[edit]

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

Not notable -- have searched for reliable sources but there is no depth of coverage. Most of the articles look like copies of press releases about moving locations, etc. Unsure if "Chesapeake's first brewery" is intended as a claim of significance. Somno (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the last 3 refs are routine coverage about moving, so don't contribute to notability. All the earlier refs are to the company website, so also don't contribute to notability. 0 for 8. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basic Google search shows reference from website forwarded by the City of Chesapeake's official government website^[1] provides the location and claim that the company is the "First microbrewery in Chesapeake, VA."^[2] Also, proposal for deletion lacks any credible argument for such proposal given the nature of the article and its supporting sources; an invalid proposal overall. Nick40ghs 09:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a successful local restaurant with minimal local coverage, but nothing beyond that that indicates notability. Being the first microbrewery in a city is not a significant claim. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – “God knows I love my beer”. However, at this time, the Big Ugly Brewing Company is just a local microbrew which may be notable within its small geographical area, with no recognition outside of this area, but has not gone far enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Best of luck to them and hopefully they hit it big and at that time happy to read about them here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:16, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Staffieri[edit]

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

Non-notable. Subject has received only trivial mention in referenced links. Brian Kendig (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catharsis (American band)[edit]

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

This band currently has zero secondary source coverage (needs significant coverage from multiple, reliable, independent sources (?)) nevertheless enough coverage to build an article that does justice to the topic. No suitable merge/redirect targets: not mentioned at CrimethInc. nor are there sources to warrant doing so. Previously deleted in 2007, hence the AfD instead of a PROD. czar 15:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 15:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a bold statement to claim that the band has zero secondary source coverage, as it isn't something that is really possible to prove. There is some coverage out there ([2], [3], [4]). It should be noted that there appears to be another American band with the same name ([5]). I suppose notability here may come down to whether releases on CrimethInc satisfy WP:BAND criterion 5, i.e. is it "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)"? --Michig (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? I don't see how CrimethInc. would possibly satisfy that criterion. As for the sources, yes, the IndyWeek review is a find, but would we base an entire article on one alt weekly review? The other two mentions don't add much substance. czar 18:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the other bands on the label, I don't think you could really make a case for it being a sufficiently important label for a pass of criterion 5 of WP:BAND. On the coverage identified so far I agree there's not enough to support an article. It's possible that someone can dig up more though, given that a lot of their releases are from an era where coverage may not be found online. If nobody does, it's a delete for me. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Zalevsky[edit]

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

I couldn't find any WP:RS to establish notability. The best I could find was a nomination for the Palm Art Award [6], which is something put on by Who's who in Visual Art [7]. Tone is totally Promo, and has been flagged for COI. Theredproject (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has to be cleaned up, but having museum exhibitions and quite enough references in Ukrainian and English grants passing WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this English source seems to be significant as well. Seems like decent Ukrainian language sources as well. Needs cleanup for sure, but not deletion. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. -- Dane ^talk 18:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liero[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I used to play this game a lot with my brother in the early 2000s, and it has a great nostalgic value to me. However, even I have to face the fact that there appears to be scant reliable sources about this game.

The current sources include: wikis, self-published sources, unreliable reviews, and a bunch of dead links.

I tried to search for additional sources and was unable to come up with anything.

It's time to have a discussion about this game. :) Coin945 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh my! Good ol' Liero. I found a couple of pretty reliable sources mentioning it in passing at least:
- https://www.aamulehti.fi/kulttuuri/muistatko-viela-nama-suomalaiset-klassikkopelit-nama-100-paasevat-tampereen-tulevaan-pelimuseoon-24144926/
  - Strong keep it was chosen as one of 100 significant Finnish games for the opening of the Finnish Museum of Games, how shoudl the game gather more relevancy?
- https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/16261/
- https://books.google.ch/books?id=wplcAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT41&dq=suomen+pelit+liero&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLqves6uHZAhVSVWMKHWHMD7wQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=suomen%20pelit%20liero&f=false
- http://vapriikki.fi/pelimuseo-2/pelit/
Most likely the following would also mention it if a copy could be found/borrowed?
- https://books.google.ch/books?id=T1tiCQAAQBAJ
- https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinivalkoinen_pelikirja

Manelolo (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to add some sources here that I have found - it is strange to me that the game is so popular while it seems very hard to locate adequate sourcing. Due to that paradox I spent a bit of time digging deeper to find bits and pieces. Not sure if it's enough just yet.--Coin945 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.cnews.cz/hra-liero-zabij-cerva-plamenometem-ci-kyselinou-nostalgie/
- https://www.root.cz/clanky/historie-vyvoje-pocitacovych-her-58-cast-hra-liero-a-jeji-klony/
- Small mention in book
- http://www.chip.de/downloads/Liero_74852703.html
- A passage about the game physics of Liero on page 306
- Inspired Noita and kugeln.io
- An indie game before the term "indie game" existed
- Mobygames lists 5 reviews, all of which I believe are unreliable
  - beside the questionable terminology and hysterical overfocus on binary "reliability" in general, it is a shame that we still have no gamehippo article, considering its impact in its prime years. Shaddim (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep: influential game with long history and many reliable sources (many paper which are hard to locate) Shaddim (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC) PS: about dead links, these are no reason for questipning the game or these now dead but still valid sources. Also, please check the Internet archive for mementos of them[reply]
- - It seems unlikely for a 1998 freeware game to have lots of print sources.--Coin945 (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - the print magazines of the yesteryears hat regularly columns of free games. I would be surprised if it would not been covered in multiple magazines worldwide and also included on coverdiscs and compilatiosn. Shaddim (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info: FYI, ran InternetArchiveBot on the article and it rescued 16 web sources from the archive so should help verifiablity. Manelolo (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears the nom wanted cleanup. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 31 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. Its not clear where the redirect should be but feel free to use editorial judgement to put it in. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ballybran[edit]

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

All plot summary, no indication of real-world notability. All references are primary. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom is I think right that this is a non-notable work among dozens of similar writings from this prolix author. The reasoning is however incorrect - notability is a product of what exists in the world, not what is written in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crystal Singer as per above. Neutral as to whether it should be a delete+redirect, or a history-preserving redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most probably notable. There is actually quite a lot of coverage in GBooks. Here, for example, "Ballybran" is directly discussed as an analog for the United States. Frankly, however, this AfD is a complete waste of time. Because of PRESERVE and ATD, we are never going to delete this article. The only possible outcomes here are keep and merge (and I think it is more likely to be a keep). I am tempted to suggest this nomination be procedurally closed and sent to proposed mergers. Another problem with this nomination is that "Ballybran" is the well known pseudonym of a real village in West Kerry, so we would want the page name anyway. James500 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, we would not normally delete and redirect an article unless every revision in the page history satisfies WP:REVDEL. In order to delete and redirect, it would, amongst other things, be necessary to check every revision in the histories of both pages to make sure that nothing has ever been copied from the page that is to be deleted to the target article. This would be necessary to ensure compliance with the attribution requirements explained in WP:CWW. It is such a pain in the neck that we normally refuse to do it, and it is one of the reasons why WP:R forbids the deletion of non-harmful redirects. James500 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete and redirect is a thing you know. The page content doesn't necessarily need to be preserved, so the AfD is not pointless. I would vote exactly that, and Delete and redirect to the West Kerry location he is talking about if it is mentioned in the article, otherwise just delete._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:47, 26 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C. P. Padmakumar[edit]

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

Only non-trivial third-party coverage I could find on him was a mention of his death. Only cited source in the article itself is a WP:PRIMARY. Smtchahal (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 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 keep. There is consensus that the topic is notable enough for an article. The concerns about the article content can be addressed through editing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laser fence[edit]

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

Aside from the short blurb about the fence along the India-Pakistan border (which violates WP:NOTNEWS), the article is a dictionary definition. The fictional details are original research. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it's not a dictionary definition – it's a WP:STUB. See WP:DICDEF which explains the difference. Andrew D. (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some referenced information to the article. You click the Google news link at the top of this AFD and you can see where laser fencing has been used to protect crops, as well as to secure borders. Clearly passes the WP:GNG. Dream Focus 02:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While Andrew D is correct that's it's not a DICDEF, it's simply because it's not a definition of all. Only a single of the reliable sources in the article even refers to the term. And that source relies solely on an underlying source from the BBC which doesn't use the term. Utterly fails WP:GNG, and should be deleted as per WP:NEO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The The Wall Street Journal article is behind a paywall. The Times of India calls it a laser wall instead of a laser fence. The Register calls it a "LASER RAT FENCE". The MIT technology review calls it a Insect-Zapping Laser “Fence”. [8] Dream Focus 03:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the current sources seem inadequate then we should just add some more. Sources like The Alarm, Sensor & Security Circuit Cookbook;Principles & Practices of Laser Technology;Installing & servicing electronic protective systems;Industrial and Highway Sensors Technology; Electronic Gadgets for the Evil Genius; &c. These all talk about laser fences as a commercial technology which seems to have been in use for decades. Andrew D. (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As long as the page covers laser fences generally, and not just a single product, it's well within GNG, and there seems to be enough sourcing to make the page more than just a dictionary definition. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I should add that I became aware of this AfD from its listing at the Article Rescue Squad List. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 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 no consensus. Leaned towards keep, as better arguments were made on that behalf. However, the outcome of "no consensus" and "keep" are ultimately the same; the article stays. Killiondude (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Alaa Eddin[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable performer. Quis separabit? 04:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking the necessary qualifications as an artist. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Even a quick glance at his Arabic-language Wikipedia page would have revealed numerous sources in Arabic that easily meet the guidelines at WP:N. Even a search in English reveals that some editions of Google did a Doodle for him. WP:BEFORE was clearly ignored here. Canadian Paul 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a poor article at present but the arabic version shows he passses WP:GNG and can enable an expansion of the article Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed that the article is not great at present but it does pass the WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:26, 26 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Records (Japan)[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable record label, which fails WP:CORP (Side note: more baking recipes/cook books come up than hits for this). Only reference in the article is primary, with not much in the way of WP:RS showing up in WP:BEFORE.

There is a Bloomberg profile, however, it alone does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and just proves that it exists (or, rather, it did as its domain is up for sale). TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an unremarkable label with no indications of notability or significance; fails WP:NCORP. No effort has been made to make this page remotely passable; we should expect better. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Leonard[edit]

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

Subject does not quality for inclusion on Wikipedia under GNG or JOURNALIST. He's merely one of many, many local US news/sports/weather on-air talents. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meteorologists are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of significant coverage including [9] [10] - Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- chief meteorologist in large media market. I don't live in Boston, but if I did I'm sure I would know who he is. When someone has a major role in a widely watched television program (in this case the local news) then I think they meet notability guidelines (see WP:ENT). Also in-depth coverage from an independent reliable source [11] [12] Unfortunately, I could not find any coverage outside of the local area, so that's why I going with weak keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additional references appear to have him meet GNG. --RAN (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional references appear to have him meet GNG. Szzuk (talk) 16:27, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gold star gay[edit]

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

This article consists of a WP:DICDEF and of a list of men with descriptions of their sex lives. The dicdef belongs into Wiktionary or into a glossary list, and the rest belongs nowhere in Wikipedia because we are not a tabloid. This could be an encyclopedia article if there were some cultural or social significance to this concept, but that does not seem to be the case. Sandstein 18:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's assessment of this article is essentially correct — this is a WP:DICDEF of a term which does not constitute a defining characteristic of its possessors, referenced only to some interview quotes supporting unencyclopedic gossip about people's sex lives. Yeah, it's a thing some of my fellow gays do say about themselves, but that doesn't make it a notable fact about who and what they are: nobody is actually going around handing out gold stars or taking away people's gay cards, or assigning or taking away status in the community, on this basis. Gold star lesbian, which isn't much more than a dictionary definition either but at least avoids the tabloidy stuff about individual lesbians' sex lives, should probably also be listed for deletion alongside this. These are not topics that need their own standalone articles — neither one of them needs anything more than one sentence within the main articles on gay or lesbian themselves. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 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. Although participation is low the nature of sources are well established and after two relists we probably are not going to get further contribution. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alain-Fabien Delon[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's eligibility (notability) criteria. Extremely limited career, aside of being "the son of". Severely lacking content and multiple reliable sources. WikiMeWiki (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — WikiMeWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Obviously all the sources are going to be in French. Did nom check? Also, the fact that nom gives "severely lacking content and multiple reliable sources" as a reason for deletion shows some kind of misconceptions about deletion policy. See WP:ARTN. Finally, there are tons of sources in French. Just see e.g. [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] and on and on and on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- Fluent in French, I can read the sources. Mainly articles from French magazines assimilated to tabloids, with topics that end up with little or nothing to do with the subject, mainly focused on his father's celebrity. Also, notability cannot be inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. "Lacking content" because 4 lines hardly make a solid Wikipedia biography demonstrating an actual career of his own. Finally, Wikipedia is not an IMDb page. WikiMeWiki (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)— WikiMeWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is wrong. The first one is from Le Point, hardly "assimilated to a tabloid," whatever that means. If you don't like Le Point take it to WP:RSN. The second is from Gala, also not a tabloid. I'll grant you that Closer is a tabloid, but it's not an unreliable source for celebrity material, esp. given the strict libel laws throughout Europe, and especially in Britain, where Closer is based. Again, if you don't like the source, take it to RSN, not AfD. You're just flat-out wrong about the content of the sources. They are about him, and there are hundreds of others about him as well. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No lesson needed, I live in France, and YES I did check the sources : Gala, Closer and Public magazines are all classified as gossip papers ("presse people" in French, see [17]). Gossip magazines are NOT considered reliable sources per Wikipedia's rules (see WP:NOTRELIABLE). Here's for everyone a translation of the so-called four reliable sources you cited : → Le Point : "Alain-Fabien Delon : things don't go well with his father...", → Gala : "Alain-Fabien Delon was not raised to have caviar for breakfast", → Closer : "Alain-Fabien Delon and how he handles money : "I don't have daddy's credit card", → Public : "Alain-Fabien Delon : "I think my dad is a bit jealous of me". Quality and reliable content about the subject's actually limited career ? Definitely NOT. Again, notability is not inherited (see WP:NOTINHERITED) and has to show sustainability (see WP:SUSTAINED). Side note, there are two Closer magazines. One is based in the UK and published by German publisher Bauer Media Group, the other (which is the cited source) is owned by French publisher "Mondadori France" (see [18]) – a completely separate entity. Meanwhile, if you do have hundreds of reliable quality sources covering a sustainable career (not father-son or family gossips as cited), please do include them in the article to complete the mere four lines content, which right now is not sufficient to make this biography eligible per Wikipedia's standards. Next time before asserting someone's "flat-out wrong", be kind enough to use Google Translate to understand a source content (especially when you don't live or talk the country's language and culture). WikiMeWiki (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)— WikiMeWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We don't accept arguments from authority at Wikipedia. The fact, if fact it is, that you're totally 1000% French is not relevant, and it's not evidence of anything. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that the titles of the articles mention the guy's dad doesn't mean that they're about the guy's dad. They are full-length articles about the guy. And you see WP:NOTRELIABLE. Clearly it means that each source must be evaluated individually. This process does not take place at AfD but at WP:RS, which is not where we are right now. As it stands there are multiple sources which discuss this fellow at length. No one's disputing the reliability of Le Point, and as far as I know the unreliability of e.g. Gala has not been established. Finally, your challenge to me to add the sources to the article is not well-taken in this context. The sources in the article don't determine notability, the sources in the world determine notability. See WP:ARTN. If the lack of sources actually in the article bothers you, add them yourself, otherwise drop the issue, since it's irrelevant at AfD. It's not the subject of today's discussion. You're also, evidently, flat-out wrong about notability (and, if it matters, whether or not I "talk the country's ... culture." 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never claimed to be evidence of anything. Pointed out I can read and understand French, including the sources content (not just titles), as well as which papers are nationally considered gossip magazines in that specific country providing the French Wikipedia classification of gossip magazines (not my own interpretation as it doesn't matter here). But French Wikipedia users must be "flat-out wrong" about their own classification with subjects they actually know better. Back to the subject and the only thing that matters here : "is the subject eligible per Wikipedia's eligibility criteria as a MODEL (see WP:NMODEL) or ACTOR (see WP:NACTOR) ?" (initial reason of this AfD). Both guidelines are identical, strict and simple : 1 → Subject has NO "significant roles in MULTIPLE notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", 2 → Subject has NO "large fan base or a significant cult following" (10K followers is hardly a large fan base as social media influencers – with zero Wikipedia eligibility – have more following than the subject will ever have), and finally 3 → Subject DID NOT "make a single unique, prolific or innovative contribution to a field of entertainment". That easy. Even if these facts were to be disregarded and notability wished to be claimed on the sole fact that the subject is "the son of", Wikipedia is 100% clear on the matter : if "person A has a relationship with well-known person B – such as being a spouse or child – is not a reason for a standalone article on person A; relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on person B" (see WP:INVALIDBIO, additional reason of this AfD). As this discussion is likely to go in circles, other users will have to vote and weigh in to determine this article's fate – as a single vote won't make the cut. WikiMeWiki (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lebikigeedifaarax[edit]

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

Somali "town" which doesn't exist. Satellite imagery shows no traces of settlement near the claimed coordinates. The one source cites is a database entry which lists it as a "locality", this just means some sort of place and doesn't mean anybody lives there. Unverifiable. Hut 8.5 18:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as another unverifiable, nonnotable "locality". Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete As per Mangel. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 31 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curamericas Global[edit]

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

There are 4 links for the company at Google News, with 2 of them being press-releases. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Green (actor)[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Awards / categories are not significant; "Grabby Awards Wall of Fame" does not qualify. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable too.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 31 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Christian Network (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a religious television service with no strong claim to passing WP:NMEDIA. All of the references here are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting ones, and NMEDIA does not confer an automatic notability freebie on every broadcast entity that exists -- it accepts a broadcasting company as notable only if it can be reliably sourced as clearing GNG. There's also a very complex history here of editors failing to really pay attention to what they were doing: for much of its history, this article has been hiding in the edit history of a redirect to a Facebook group that has nothing whatsoever to do with this apart from having had the same name, and was thus the wrong link topic for every single thing that's actually linking to this title. So I reverted the redirect back to the article because the redirect was wrong, but the article isn't actually sourced well enough to stay here. The former redirect target isn't properly sourced as notable either, for the record, so it'll be coming to AFD as well, but the broadcaster and the "Christian precursor to Facebook" aren't the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a couple of refs which talk about the subject but they aren't sufficiently independent. Szzuk (talk) 16:22, 31 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 2018 Vienna stabbing. Participants are encouraged to help in the merge process and to discuss renaming 2018 Vienna stabbing on the appropriate talk page, as well. Killiondude (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Vienna embassy stabbing[edit]

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

Notability and WP:NOTNEWS concerns. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Vienna stabbing, but less notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notability is the same as for the 2018 Vienna stabbing. The Austrian government changed its asylum policy because of both incidents, so why should it be less notable? I really don't understand this AfD nomination.--Greywin (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the government opposed asylum before the stabbings, and merely found it a convenient pretext. How many causes can a (ultimately minor) policy change have before we agree that none of them are notable? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Suggest Merge I reckon merging the two articles could put the entire situation in the context of changes to immigration policies. Something like 2018 Vienna stabbings would work. Acebulf (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2018 Vienna stabbing, and rename to 2018 Vienna stabbing attacks or similar. Coverage seems to be joint, particularly the political side.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per WP:RAPID - investigation is just getting underway, WP:NCRIME and WP:PRESERVE. As Users:Acebulf &Icewhiz suggest, merging to something like 2018 Vienna stabbing attacks makes sense, not least because the two are paired as part of the move by the present government of Austria to change its immigration/asylum laws in response to these two headline crimes. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The stabbings go hand-in-hand for what makes them notable. I think a hasty copy-and-paste would be a net-negative, but a planned selective merge with context could create a respectable article, particularly on Austria's moves to change their immigration policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:22, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenuse Mohamed[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited and per WP:1E. The son of director Kamal, with only one film credit. Delete or redirect to 100DOL. --Let There Be Sunshine 16:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:43, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abaaley[edit]

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

Here, in the Somali placename parade, we come across a different problem: there's a town about at the coordinates given, but geonames says that its name is "Berdale", which we claim is a district in Bay, which is untrue: it's clearly a small city with its own airstrip. Berdale is clearly a valid name, but it's also extremely common, and there are two listed in Hiiraan. There's an "Aborey", which both geonames and the aerials agree upon, but it's nowhere near the coordinates given. I feel a generous application of WP:TNT is in order in straightening this out. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Mangoe, this is one of around 25 afds that you and Hut 8.5 have put up relating to Somali non-localities in the last week or so, they look pretty uncontroversial, just wondering why you didn't prod them? or have they all been down that route before? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them have provoked quite a bit of discussion and some dissenting opinions, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xabasha Wacle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maqaxdameer. Some have even been closed as no consensus, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uunsi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daharro. Given that I'm not sure that these are suitable for PROD. Hut 8.5 00:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious "town" deletions have proven to be controversial on the past, with the guidelines being largely ignored in favor of "every dot is sacred" keeps. The other issue is that the scraping that appears to be the source of this was quite indiscriminate, and while a lot of these "towns" appear to be simply mislabelled "localities", not all are, and there are quite a few naming issues. Early on I might have prodded all the "towns which are really localities" cases had I been assured that I wouldn't have to do it all over again on a one-by-one basis, but I think we've gotten past that point now. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not There. z'Marquis d'L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:21, 26 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. If a redirect is desired to a particular target, that can be created. Consensus is clear that this content doesn't belong. —SpacemanSpiff 05:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous elections[edit]

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

This article has no references and is essentially the author's opinion or original research.

There is no indication with no references of whether the topic of "simultaneous elections" is notable in the context of having been addressed in depth of reliable sources such as newspapers or magazines. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unsourced and WP:NOTESSAY SportingFlyer talk 22:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to General election as simultaneous elections of multiple posts/bodies are commonly referred to as general elections (that article needs work though). Number 5 7 21:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite I think this article could be kept, it just needs to be heavily rewritten. Not a very active user (talk) 11:32, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Fiber Music[edit]

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

Company that is not remarkable enough for its own article. Does not pass the criteria listed at WP:NCORP because there are no reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly. KingAndGod 13:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A record label and talent service company founded in 2014 focusing on the international latin market, there are refs but they are weak. Szzuk (talk) 16:15, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qaroonweyn[edit]

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

The article says this is a "locality" and cites a printed gazetteer (which I can't read) from the geonames people, but geonames now gives two hits for this name (with varying orthography, of course): one is a locality in a different district, and another (which matches the coordinates given) is labelled a "valley". The aerials show a large empty area WSW of Qardho, which might be called a valley in contrast to the hills to the south. I'm still inclined to say "not notable" but please discuss. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails V and per nom. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not populated, not a named natural feature in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 16:02, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NVA Holdings[edit]

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

The only person who has ever taken an interest in this article is the COI creator. It was so promotional. So badly written.
There are so many flaws and reasons why this article was abysmal and after hacking through it, all I'm left with is a shell.
Upon closer inspection, a complete lack of GNG.
The TV and film arm had one show that had some interest and coverage, but it's the show and not the company behind it that gets the notability.
The record label fared much worse, claiming to be behind a top 10 hit but with no support (and much proof against). With 22 facebook likes, 2 home-made CDs, no charting releases and now dissolved, there's nothing to it.
The umbrella company's facebook page does have a considerable following (over 34,000 likes) but the interaction with posts is roughly equivalent to what you'd expect when the likes come from a like farm.
Searches on NVA render little more than a self-released PR stunt to Reuters (about a Jay Z - Ashley Cole deal that bore no fruit) and conventional info linked to a corporate entity (companies house listings etc).
This is the tip of the PR editing iceberg I've uncovered but even taking that out of the equation, i think there's a massive gap between even the most liberal application of GNG and this company's coverage. Rayman60 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH for the reason that the significant coverage is either not reliable or not independent and the independent coverage is not actually about them at all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Six refs amount to 2 sentences of coverage. Szzuk (talk) 15:37, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Mullin[edit]

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

This person is not remarkable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. KingAndGod 12:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because the same as above, he is a band member of Mullin and is not notable enough.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No claims of importance/significance, WP:NMUSIC clearly not met, and no refs that help meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both created by an account named for the band. Even if notable, the guidelines say we would have a band page and redirect the members to that. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both are vanity articles by an SPA editor. Both lack the necessary significant RS. Both contain original research (although Seth Mullin article has had the OR edited out since nomination, resulting in a two sentence article.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as its WP:TOOSOON for the band as they haven't released an album yet so its definitely too early for the band members to have standalone articles Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 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 keep. No chance that this will be deleted per the snowball of keeps. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 18:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Stephon Clark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This recreated article PRODefd as WP:NOTNEWS; PROD removed. Cannot see why this particular killing of a black man by lily law is or likely to become notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this incident has already caused well documented large protest, and as the event is only a couple days old, it is too soon to saw that this event is unnotable. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - largely procedurally. The protest is enough to give it the benefit of the doubt for now. If there's no continued coverage/effect, it might be reasonable to revisit this discussion in a few months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google search of shooting of Stephon Clark shows wide coverage and that the coverage seems to be beyond simple news reporting of a current event. The shooting is being discussed in the context of a wider phenomenon of police shootings of unarmed suspects. Also, the shooting has already led to multiple protests [19]. Keep because topic seems to be encyclopedic and to meet GNG.--DynaGirl (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The protests (widely reported in the media even outside the media market) resulted from this shooting makes this incident notable.Acnetj (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2018. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continuing coverage and impact, resulting in protests, makes this notable.--Beneficii (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is widely covered, widely resulting in protests, and highly relevant to broader topics of historic significance (police shootings, BLM). I find it bizarre to think that nobody will be interested in reading this in 20,30,40 years. Ncpz (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is expansive news coverage on the shooting and subsequent demonstrations, making this notable. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, at the very least per WP:RAPID, due to wide coverage of various protests after this event.Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per today's Los Angeles Times: Unrest intensifies in Sacramento over police killing of unarmed Stephon Clark]. Also pas per WP:RAPID. It's WP:SNOWING. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: there's no way this would close otherwise. It's not just about the shooting, but about the protests as well. Recommend this AfD be closed early. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been trying to improve the article but there's a mountain of material available that I still haven't sifted through. A lot more needs to be done on the political reactions of various figures, and the protests — those things alone clearly demonstrate current and future notability. -Darouet (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep—Consequential public reactions distinguish notable police shootings from non-notable ones, for better or for worse. Pretty clear where this one falls, at least for the time being.--Carwil (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Already very notable and personally I think this is also an important topic to cover in the wake of recent protests. QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 04:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: already notable and only getting moreso, not disappering after 15 mins. --Jeremyb (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Widespread coverage, even NBA players joined the protests.--Jamez42 (talk) 17:28, 26 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Planet[edit]

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

I checked Google News mentions for "Brick Planet" and they are all for the LEGO display. I wonder if this game is notable or not? Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find a single reliable source that even mentions the Brick Planet game, led alone any that meet the threshold for WP:GNG. No opposition to recreating article if the game gets a following or more popular or pending more WP:RS. Tutelary (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear notable enough for an article. Article reads like a blog (I am not proposing that as a reason for deletion). Orenburg1 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:41, 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 keep. Rationale for Keep rather than no consensus; the delete arguments were indeed non-policy-based and WP:ATA, whereas there was one sound !vote to keep, and another which (while "Keep per X") was also guideline-based. ~72 hours after the second relist, this is about as good as it gets. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 07:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B Positive Choir[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria Natureium (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not enough sources. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 16:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these news sources; I would also consider this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this to be suitable sources that could be used. I'll expand the article when I've got a mo. In the meantime, see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs are trivial or marginal at best. It is a charity choir recently created to raise money from a song. I think they will disappear shortly and this is just 1 event material. Szzuk (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ritchie333; it's probably only ever going to be a stub, but it's gained easily enough third-party coverage to pass WP:GNG. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 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 speedy Keep as he is a member of the Rajya Sabha and passes WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 16:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subhashis Chakraborty[edit]

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

Reason TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable person, there is no mention of him as a politician on any Google searches. Fails WP:GNG

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep the reference already in the article verifies that he was just elected to the Rajya Sabha. What's the problem? Tons of recent mentions of his win in WP:RS on GNews, which nominator should have tried searching WP:BEFORE nominating. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:11, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Jacobs (Make up)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I am sceptical that we can make a decent article out of this - the only sources seem to be gossipy tabloid newspapers, which just isn't good enough for WP:BLP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems there isn't enough notability or indeed information in general to build an article of any reasonable size. I also can't think of why we'd need one for this person. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the least-trivial reference appears to be [20], which isn't enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I couldn't find any better WP:RS than what exists, which isn't enough. Theredproject (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Mr RD 00:23, 26 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Martinez (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer far from WP:NBOX. Prod was removed without comment by an ip, original poster seems to be the subject. PRehse (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX. His only pro fight was last month and nothing notable about his amateur career. Coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 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 delete and redirect to Heads-up display. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HUD (computing)[edit]

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

Unsourced, WP:OR and non-notable article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Heads-up display, as this can still cover this particular subject matter in the parent article. Keep, Technology that has been around and used for over 50 years. Plenty of academic sources with rich information on the subject. I have taken one of these books and added a history section, appropriately sourced and can see there is alot of potential for improvement. Bizarre to suggest it isn't notable! How much research was done before starting the AfD? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you aren't just adding information that is already in Heads-up display? This article is talking about a separate thing entirely, a non notable minor software element, not the idea of a HUD in general._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, though it seems to be more focussed on HUD from a computational angle (cars have built in computers, programs etc). In saying that, whether a dedicated article is needed is debatable. I am for "keeping" the information it holds, though maybe there could be a "merge and redirect" until such a time that someone can collate enough info to justify a separate article. I'll change my vote accordingly. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tuki Brando[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's eligibility (notability) criteria. Extremely limited career, aside of being "the son of". Severely lacking content and multiple reliable sources. WikiMeWiki (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Out of the three sources in the article, one is a news item about Christian Brando's death where the subject's name is in the list of relatives, the second is a Vogue Italia brief write-up, and the third link is dead. Searching for more mentions online brings up the briefest of mentions (such as here) as "the relative of so-and-so," social media pages, YouTube clips, brief mentions w/pic in celebrity mags such as Voici (here), which are simple listings or promos, or brief write-ups in mainstream newspapers (as in here, for a clumsy one). The Daily Mail crap only makes it worse. Typical effort in the media by the PR/mgmt people, but here, at best, WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:01, 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 and redirect to Rule of Ming and Zhang. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resurgence of Guangwu[edit]

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

Appears to be a neologism, or at least very uncommon term. A quoted search for both Resurgence of Guangwu and Guangwu Resurgence came back with minimal results, very few of which used such terminology. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably not a neologism in Chinese if the source of Hou Han Shu (now wikilinked at the article) is correct. I too am not really seeing many hits in English for this phrase. If it is kept as a redirect, redirecting to Han_dynasty#Eastern_Han might make sense, as where I do see it, it seems to refer to more than the reign of Guangwu alone, more of, to use westernized metaphors, an Eastern Han golden age or renaissance. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to the (equally poorly sourced) article on the Rule of Ming and Zhang. It is stated that the term "Resurgence of Guangwu" is used interchangeably with "Rule of Ming and Zhang", anyway. -The Gnome (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect -- This placeholder is no more than a definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless unsourced one-sentence stub. -Zanhe (talk) 17:17, 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 delete. The previous close was a script error. I had intended to delete. Must have flicked the wrong speedy outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snatch Game[edit]

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

The segment is not sufficiently notable outside of the main show to need its own article. WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 13:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is most definitely sufficiently notable outside of the main show and doesn't hurt to have its own article. Dallasansel (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Can you show significant coverage by reliable sources? If not, this falls foul of WP:HARMLESS. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deleting this article. The phenomenon of a "recurring segment" is admittedly a peculiar phenomenon in broadcast media, so the standard inclusion criteria are likely ill suited for addressing this type of content. For the sake of comparison, consider various recurring segments from Saturday Night Live (The Barry Gibb Talk Show, Coffee Talk, Sprockets, and many others) or The Itchy & Scratchy Show from The Simpsons. While references could be improved, I believe deletion is unwarranted in this case. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 04:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent segments are incredibly common in TV shows of many sorts. Only a very few are notable enough for individual articles, such as the ones you mention. None of those are subgames on a game show so they don't really help us here. For game shows it is more appropriate to describe the format, including the main subgames, in the main article and not to attempt to detail every winner or loser at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively into the main article(s) and/or Redirect. While I do think a recurring segment could possibly be notable on its own, the bar for coverage would be relatively high, and I would want to see a good amount of analysis of that particular segment beyond e.g. talk about the show in general, episode recaps, and other kinds of coverage that you could expect of recurring segments on any reality tv show with recurring segments. I'm thinking about Top Chef's Quickfire, Wheel of Fortune's Bonus Round, Final Jeopardy, etc. -- all of which would have coverage within coverage of the show itself but not a great deal of special attention paid to them beyond routine coverage of the shows. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very limited partial merge and delete the rest. The idea that individual subgames on a contest or talent show should have their own articles is flat out bonkers in pretty much all cases. If there are any exceptions then this sure ain't one of them. I have no objection to the name and some very basic explanation of the game format being merged to the main article but all the detailed coverage here is pure fancruft and needs to go. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a indiscriminate pile of minor stats about individual winners and losers of individual episodes of game shows and minor sporting events. There are places on the internet for this sort of thing but Wikipedia is not one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: information in article is already included in the season pages in some way. There's no need for a segment on a reality show to have its on article. Brocicle (talk) 17:20, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gross[edit]

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

Not finding enough in the article or in online searches to meet WP:GNG. Famous father, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets GNG. See this OC Weekly article on his current band, not presently cited in the article. Also this Gawker article on Gross, also not currently cited in the article. Plus the stuff that is cited in the article, e.g. the Billboard piece. This is enough coverage, clearly. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually, there clearly isn't enough coverage, at least independent coverage. The first two articles are written by Gross himself, and the Gawker article is merely reporting on a Bloomberg article (archived here) which is just an interview with Gross plugging his STRZ Enterprises company, so all of these can be discounted as primary sources, as well as the links to STRZ Enterprises and FYG Foundation websites. The Businesswire and Venturebeat articles are press releases that only mention Gross in passing as an investor in a start-up, which doesn't demonstrate notability. The Billboard article is reliable and independent, but it doesn't show that Gross is individually notable, only that his band might be. Everything else is local coverage and/or inherited notability of his famous father or two non-notable bands that Gross has been in. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Richard3120 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable as either musician, entrepreneur, or philanthropist. Coverage is hyper-local, WP:SPIP, or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the band he's in isn't notable, it sure can't be inherited by him. None of his bits of "Serial entrepreneurship" add up to notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The deficiencies of the sources are well covered by Richard3120. All of his entrepreneur-related coverage is either user generated or run-of-the-mill. Anything pertaining to his celebrity falls under WP:NOTINHERITED or by being one of many people on an MTV reality show and its attendant run-of-mill recognition. His other press comes from being a member of a band, but references indicating stand alone notability aren't apparent. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:08, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Johnson[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or promotional or not reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Clumsily put together, promotional text about a non-celebrity. Tellingly, one line of the text informs us that he once "expressed not only a passion for helping the community, but also admiration for the musical talents of will.i.am." The only source in the text that'd be worth citing, to the Orange County Register, is dead. -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Community Television[edit]

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

Local access station, article fails WP:GNG and contains original research. Even the website provided at the end of the article does not contain that much information. Other than a couple local newspaper articles with a brief mention, I cannot find any sources at all. So there is no confusion, this station is operated by Princeton, the town (not Princeton University). Rusf10 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Community Television is not operated by the town of Princeton, it is a separate not-for-profit 503C. With the continuing consolidation of media independent voices are extremely important. I don't understand how to follow every little rule on wikipedia but I do know that Princeton Community Television is a real thing that deserves a page. When the state of New Jersey shut down NJN Princeton Community Television became the largest producer of content for public Television in New Jersey. https://pro.imdb.com/company/co0370418/?ref_=fn_co_co_13 IMDb shows over a page of movies and TV shows produced and distributed by Princeton Community Television. Instead of trying to shut down the voice pf public television, why not help to expand and research the page so that it better meets wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherclue (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Justanotherclue:I do not question whether the station exists, but the current article is unsourced. We need independent reliable sources. When I did a Google search I could barely find any mention of this in reliable sources. Unfortunately, IMDB is not a reliable source because it is user edited just like wikipedia. see WP:RS for more information on reliable sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does produce a large amount of original content which is one of the factors for notability in television stations Atlantic306 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs in the article, serves a population of 30,000. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Szzuk, just fyi, the question at AfD is, "is the topic notable"; and in most cases it can only be answered by searching for sources. It took me a while to understand this, Wikipedia is such a complicated place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a stations own website is not enough on its own to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Searches on "Princeton TV" and "TV30" = Princeton seem to get some hits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Possible keep~~(slight change to iVote after teking time to do a small, sourced upgrade article.) it doesn't keep much searching using the search terms I suggested above to find ONGOING , SIGCOV of some of the individual programs in the station's lineup. I added some and will be watching to see what other editors find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, hits and significant coverage are not the same thing. The sources you added about Eric Mintel, are about Eric Mintel, not Princeton Community Television. The sources you added have done absolutely nothing to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf, please consider that some of us take a different approach to assessing notability. I take the slow road, constantly second-guessing myself, considering that there may be alternative search terms, that my initial sources may have taken the wrong track, that some topics simply need more editors who may notice different aspects of a topic. I don't mind tagging articles that I happen for notability, partly to warn readers, and partly in the hope that a knowledgeable reader will take a moment to source an inadequate article. when an article like this one seems not to be misleading or malicious, I would prefer to see it tagged for a while in the hope that someone in Princeton will source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the articles about Eric Mintel's new program (Princeton Community Television#Talking Jazz with Eric Mintel) go into some detail about this program, but my point is 1.) to encourage other editors to try alternative search terms, and , 2.) to suggest that the sourcing/notability may lie with the individual shows the station originates.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that gBooks searches get hits, the ones I saw were not descriptions of the station, they were citations to specific programs produced by the station - things like book talks and academic panel discussions that the station broadcast.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN - (slight, HEYMaNN, not a full HEYMANN upgrade.) I ran a news archive search Princeton + TV30. Then tightened, expanded, and sourced a couple of the the programs to articles in respected newspapers, like the Allentown, PA Morning Call, Philadelphia Inquirer, Courier News, and Home News Tribune, to show the sort of sourcing that is available for this station. I also tagged REIMPROVE. Article was completely unsourced when Nom found it during his process of rapidly nominating a series of community television stations for deletion. But a quick search shows that reliable sourcing is available to establish nobility (addendum:) and shows that article - which needs to have unsourced material and longstanding PROMO removed - can be improved using WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a HEYMANN! You keep finding sources with trival mentions like [21]. These do not establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage suffices. Also I would think any community TV station would be notable, would have coverage, so AFD is probably pointless. --Doncram (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, community tv stations do not have auto-notability, they must pass WP:GNG. Even WP:BROADCAST suggests that "Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable. A "governmental access" feed that runs a text generator of community events plus city council meetings for a population of 50,000 is not generally presumed notable, but can be conferred notability by meeting the standards set forth in WP:CORP.". Since this only serves 30,000 people, it really should take a lot of in-depth coverage to establish notability under GNG.

Agree. Community tv stations need to be serving a city or large town or otherwise satisfy gng or corp. With a population of 30,000 I estimate at any one time there will be around 30 people watching. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the improvements to the article. --RAN (talk) 22:29, 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Bushuyev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I see no reason why it was kept in 2009. No notability was found except "Modern Ukraine Encyclopedia" which has in it's criteria EVERY doctor of sciences in Ukraine which are 19,000 even in last 25 years awarded. Celegans (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets criteria of WP:PROF "In 1988 he became Professor in Strategic Project Management and Organizational Development at Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture KNUCA, now head of the Department of Project management at KNUCA ... He is a member of the editorial board of the International Journal of Project Management (impact factor 4.06 [22]) published by IPMA,^[3]" Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- None of becoming a professor, heading a department, belonging to an editorial board, or having a meaningless number attached to a journal are sufficient to pass any WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. His citation record isn't strong enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, his association with the academies discussed in the article appears to be as a researcher rather than the kind of honorary membership that would pass #C3, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets WP:PROF#C2 "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." He received Honored Worker of Science and Technology of Ukraine in 2004 as confirmed on a Ukranian government site. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You are only allowed one "keep"/"delete" per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The journal mentioned is indeed selective, and of reasonably high impact (http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19696&tip=sid&clean=0), but the subject's involvement is not enough to establish WP notability. If he were the EIC of the journal, we could consider keeping as per WP:PROF criterion 8. But he is not.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:29, 30 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. Michig (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency contraceptive availability by country[edit]

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

IMO this is list iis of dubious encyclopedicity. Not only it is underreferenced and out of date, I highly doubt it will ever be properly maintained Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. With a rapidly expanding pharma industry, there are a lot more brands that come out in the market. MT Train^Talk 16:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources and dubious encyclopaedic usefulness. -The Gnome (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article could be easily improved/focused by confining itself to mentioning whether EC is legal and/or available with/without perscription in each country in a table like format. This would make it more easily referenced and updated. Enough data exists that collating would not count as WP:OR [23] [24] [25] [26] SpaceInnovader (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also at risk of a bad analogy à la WP:OSE - Compare and contrast the "encyclopedic usefullness" of List of pornography laws by country ... SpaceInnovader (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I love the word "encyclopedicity." I'm neither here nor there upon the question of whether this topic has it. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the general concept of what countries emergency contraceptives are legal in is surely notable, while a per-country list of the brands for sale in that country would fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is somewhere in the middle, it needs cleanup but I think it can be kept. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The legality of emergency contraceptives can be covered in the article Emergency contraception or Abortion law, but a list of brands by country wouldn't be accurate. Here is a list of brands available in the US, and similarly there are multiple brands available in most countries. MT Train^Talk 17:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per power~enwiki. I accept the point that in its current state it's questionable, however the subject matter of the list, if cleaned up and appropriately sourced, may justify article inclusion. The Emergency contraception article doesn't deal with this on a by-country basis and would become bloated if this content were merged. Thus, i'd say there is potential for improvement so would vote weakly to keep it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI article has changed significantly. Created proposed table listing availability, counter status, prescrition status, age restriction etc... SpaceInnovader (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep with the restructured tabulated data showing the legality than brand names. MT Train^Talk 14:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has important comparative information per country on emergency contraceptive availability. Waddie96 (talk) 16:47, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Medina Pereira[edit]

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

A CSD was declined. Fails at WP:BLP1E - a coffee award. No other notability-worthy sources found. Only the usual raft of sm sites and blogs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's not enough to meet WP:GNG. All I see are a few interviews ([27]) and mentions of the coffee award, though I can't rule out somebody saving this with Spanish-language sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 10:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shourya Kumar Lal[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. The AfC was declined twice by Ammarpad and Bkissin, after which the editor moved the article to the mainspace himself who also appears to have close connection with the subject as per their username. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:59, 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Valley Red Arrow crash[edit]

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

According to WP:AIRCRASH: Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent. They account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft. AIRCRASH is just an essay but it would have been a good place to start before wasting the time of creating this article. The person who tragically died is not notable in of themselves. It is far too soon to determine whether this could possibly have any substantial lasting significance, but, considering the news coverage died down after just about a day, there is a good sign that nothing significant came from this crash. The brevity and type of coverage received should have alarmed the creator to WP:NOTNEWS, and lead them to consider briefly mentioning this in a list or simply recognize this incident is not notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mainly British coverage. No reason to expect this single fatality crash to have lasting notability. An article the ejection seat issues [28] might have some merit (and lasting coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Acnetj (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad news. Szzuk (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unfortunate, but WP is also not a news site. No prejudice if it receives lasting coverage. SportingFlyer talk 22:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) where the accident can be adequately covered. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect as per above. Flashjacket348 (talk) 20:26, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Osuagwu[edit]

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

No reliable sources. All the sources are from blogs or campaign websites. Appears to have been created from a sockpuppet account and worked on by other accounts. Meanderingbartender (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:NPOLITICIAN as he hasn't been elected yet and does not appear to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of right now, he is merely "among the governorship aspirants" in an election that's still more than a year away — which means he isn't even his party's candidate yet, but merely a candidate in the "primary" process. That is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — and even if he does get selected as his party's candidate, he'd still have to win the general election, not just run in it, before he was deemed to pass WP:NPOL. But nothing else here constitutes evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons, and the article is written more like an advertorialized campaign brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the article- Because not all the source reference are campaign materials and he was chosen as the sole candidate of his party towards 2019 governorship with endorsement and awards from his states and Nigeria

Mendyli (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t Delete- See reference https://innonews.com.ng/2018/02/imo-guber-2019-33-governorship-aspirants-emerge/ The major bone of contentions is he wordy to be on Wikipedia, the answer is yes because he is the chosen candidate of a major political party in Nigeria and he has notable award from his state and Nigeria which can stand as reference on Wikipedia but the reference needs to be worked on by another experience editor. If I can see this major reference not used by the creator of the article l think they are more that was neglected that ought to be used.Mickysandly (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person has to win the election to be considered notable as a politician, not simply be a candidate, and you haven't shown any evidence that the "Excellence in Leadership Award" is a notable award for the purposes of making a person notable because they won an award. That criterion does not attach to every award that exists, but only to a certain rarefied class of top-level awards which you haven't shown that the "Excellence in Leadership Award" is part of. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://sunnewsonline.com/imo-gives-merit-awards-to-ekwueme-ghanaian-president/ The award is pass into law and is the highest recongnise award in the state and Nigeria. Like i earlier highlighted, the article needs an experience editor to help in reconstructing the references used by the creator of the article. The above reference wasn't even usedMickysandly (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an award is "pass into law" does not automatically make it a notable award for the purposes of making a person notable because they won it — government awards can still fall below the notability bar, and non-government awards can surpass it. And that source isn't about Collins Osuagwu at all — it supports that the award exists, but is about it being presented to somebody else, so there's absolutely nothing in this article that this source can be used for. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please see http://www.ihechiopara.com/2017/10/imo-decorate-former-vice-president-and.html?m=1

The above reference/source meet your request of his name mentioned and the award been giving to him.Mickysandly (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dead link of an individual person's website, not WP:RS media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Below is another links were it is been mentioned http://www.giftnaija.com/2018/03/chief-collins-osuagwu-is-among-2017-imo.html?m=1

http://www.citypeopleonline.com/meet-collins-oswuagwu-face-behind-zeus-marina-oil-gas/

https://gregnwadikeblog.com/2018/02/06/sdp-will-take-over-power-in-imo-in-2019-osuagwu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickysandly (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't count as reliable or notability-supporting sources either. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a candidate for office is rarely enough to show notability and is not in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Him been a political candidate is not what is been considered here but the award he won. Mendyli (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The award he won is not notable enough to make him permanently includable just for having won it, if you have to depend on blogs and individual people's own self-published websites to support it. We need real reliable source media coverage about that distinction before it counts as a notability claim, and we need several pieces of that, not just one. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

URX (company)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. The company is now defunct so no further prospects for enhanced notability. Created by Special:Contributions/CAA_CAA_CAA with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I considered a partial merge into Pinterest#2013–2017:_Acquisitions, but then noted that a Pinterest spokesperson described it as an acquisition of the people more than the technology. Leaving aside the routine announcements, the Techcrunch item referenced in the article and a somewhat advertorial CRM Magazine case study – via HighBeam (subscription required) appear to be the best available coverage of the company / product, but I don't think they are sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baron, Angelo von Möller[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability. User:MVA33 is clear WP:COI editor as photo is marked own work. Boneymau (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Not notable. Should be A7 speedy delete. Acnetj (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Does G4 apply to speedy deletions? Because Angelo von Möller has already been deleted per A7 a few weeks ago. Presumably the "Baron" is an attempt to get around that. ~~Seventeen~~Thirteen-year-old "art collectors" are rarely notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he's 13. Just sayin'.104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. I ran out of fingers ... Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelo von Möller, Baron von Möller Acnetj (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plain old Angelo was A7'd on 6 March, the baron on 12 January. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously? Lets do this through AFD, then further recreations under new and exciting titles can be dealt with through G4. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. I nominate the creation of this article for Wikipedia Chutzpah of the Year. Or the hour. -The Gnome (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all name variants: No evidence of attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. It's wasting of our time to go thru AfD for this again. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability, and fails WP:GNG. Z359q (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT and SNOW CLOSE. Thanks for wasting our time. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT per above. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, nothing available thru a gsearch, also could be a case of WP:TOOSOON? great that a young person is doing this, but WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anybody notice that his collecting period of "early 2000s" translates to "before he was born"? And is Baron a title or part of his given name? RobDuch (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must be referring to his in utero period.104.163.147.121 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article on someone ridiculously far from being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's snowballing in here. Theredproject (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My sincere thanks to every admin who checks up on this AfD and allows it run for some more time. It's become something of a morning ritual to read this still developing, still alive, devastatingly obviouski discussion about a completely ridiculous idea of an article. Ahh, that coffee was truly something, again today, thank you very much. -The Gnome (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been three days, and the rule is that if you got yourself onto the wiki it runs for a week, mainly so that you can show your grade nine school buddies your Wikipedia page, on your phone, at lunchtime, while you are smoking a joint, at the far side of the parking lot. While laughing hysterically.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of the article is not so pressing and urgent to justify ignoring the usual time that we provide so everyone can put in their two cents. Be patient, it will happen. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

If we all pitch in here we can maybe make this happen. WP:HEY is not so far away. Also, he has a Youtube channel for his gallery, and it is good. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A7 - This article doesn't make a credible claim of significance - having a collection doesn't inherently make a person notable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable, not a mention in any credible media. How is this still going. The snowstorm has well and truly hit. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:06, 30 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. Michig (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lili Päivärinta[edit]

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

Musician who doesn't appear to have any relevance on her own, but only as part of the duo Lili & Susie. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 00:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lili & Susie and merge whatever content is useful and not already in the target article. (You could probably have done so without taking it to AFD.) --Hegvald (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lili & Susie. She has no independent notability but is a possible search term for the duo, therefore redirecting is most likely appropriate. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (speedy?) to Lili & Susie due to individual non-notability, a classic example of a subject that should be redirected. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the host of a well-known and long-running show in Sweden about animals. She is known for her animal activism. She has contributed to several hit songs as part of a duo that made it to Sweden's music chart. People are obviously interested in her as an individual because she's reported on when it comes to her clothes, her love life, etc. According to WP:GNG she passes due to significant coverage in secondary sources. She passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (being a host on a long-running show on national television) and "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" (people are interested in what she wears, who she dates, her personal history, her struggle with children, etc). She also passes WP:MUSIC for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Lonehexagon (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per improvements made today. Per WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC which is covered now that the article has been improved.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging - @Coolabahapple:,@TheSandDoctor: and @Hegvald: now that the article has been improved.BabbaQ (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Covered fairly extensively in a number of secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Lonehexagon, with the same rationale as for her sister: Whereas her main claim to fame is being part of the aforementioned duo, there's also other information, relevant mainly in an article about her rather than the band, that's relevant to the general public. /Julle (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I reiterate my position on redirecting the page to the duo, as the only relevant solo endeavor mentioned in the article is a show that doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. The rest is just personal life details that don't really show any relevance. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 23:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - I pinged the three editors who !voted before the improvements of the article as seen above. No one have decided to re-evaluate or comment on the improved article. BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My apologies for the delay in my response BabbaQ (was not watchlisted - fixed now - and fell off my radar) and thank you for the ping. I still feel that there is not enough coverage within the article (or present elsewhere). Most of the citations are not in depth or anything individual (or are interviews, which themselves do not contribute to notability). WP:NMUSICBIO states "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band."

Before I go into the references in the article, I will point out that I used Google Chrome's page translation feature to assess the contents as I do not speak/read Swedish. (Not that I think that that would influence anything, just stating for those curious and just in case there was a translation error or something)

The first reference is an interview of the two sisters about the group
The second is about the two of them (as a group)
The third is not in depth, just stating that she is supportive of animal rights and started a TV show (Google searches did not return any results, meaning that Wikipedia does not have an article for it and it may not be notable)
The fourth is about the two of them as (based on language in article and the FB page being referred to as "their") a collective
The fifth is a short interview and continuation of the fourth (with both)
The sixth again affirms that they were notable (as a group/collective) in the '80s, but does nothing to further separate/individual notability
The seventh (ignoring for a second that Discogs is usually not considered a reliable source) is again for the collective
The eighth is the same reference as the third, so refer to that point
The ninth is the same as the eighth and third, so refer to the third

If there are (reliable) sources out there that I may have missed (a possibility as we are all human) that help prove individual/independent notability and they are brought forward, I will happily reconsider and strike my redirect !vote in favour of a different one. I hope that this helps to explain my concerns. I thank you again for the ping. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that I forgot to mention here (but did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Päivärinta) that Expressen and Aftonbladet are both tabloids. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that medialike Expressen, Aftonbladet are the leading newspapers in Sweden and not tabloids read only for celeb gossip. I do think there are something is lost in translation here.BabbaQ (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I had the bit up there about the machine translation (in case something was lost like that). Regardless though, I believe my comments above to still "stand" - minus the tabloid mention bit. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's fine but I think there are some "lost in translation" of sources here concerning both her TV leading presenter work and songwriting and singing but that is up to you. All I can say is that Swedish editors with knowledge about her and her sister career have all !voted Keep. Anyway, thanks for your input. Cheers.BabbaQ (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Lonehexagon. Both her and her sister. Adville (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:ENTERTAINER apart from the duo as the host of a long running television show that is nationally broadcast and a regular on another show so qualifies for a standalone article and there are enough sources to confirm passing WP:ENTERTAINER Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Päivärinta[edit]

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

Musician who doesn't appear to have any relevance on her own, but only as part of the duo Lili & Susie. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 00:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lili & Susie and merge whatever content is useful and not already in the target article. (You could probably have done so without taking it to AFD.) --Hegvald (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lili & Susie. As with Lili Päivärinta's nomination, not independently notable but the duo (as a duo) is, so redirect there. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (speedy?) to Lili & Susie due to individual non-notability, a classic example of a subject that should be redirected. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:BEFORE, you have a responsibility as the nominator to do a quick Google Search and see if the topic is notable, and the article just needs improvement. When that's the case, you can simply add a tag such as ((notability)) to the page. Nominating articles for deletion is not a way to get people to clean up articles. I feel like even a preliminary search hasn't been done here because if you search for her name on Google News you can see there are several hits about her as an individual and she regularly performs and makes appearances as an individual. As a duo, they had several hit songs that made it to top 5 and top 10 of the Swedish music charts. Additionally, Päivärinta helped write Baby Doll by the bad Top Cats, which was selected for Melodifestivalen 2012 and reach 20 on the Swedish national radio chart. Many songs she's written have competed in Melodifestivalen and Eurovision. I have improved her article. According to WP:GNG she passes due to significant coverage in secondary sources over the course of decades. According to WP:ANYBIO she passes due to "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." She passes WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." She passes WP:MUSIC for "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" and "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" and "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition" (Baby Doll won #3 at Melodifestivalen 2012) and "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -Per great improvements made today. per Lonehexagons correct rationale. WP:BEFORE is ignored here. This singer has for example written charting songs, appeared in television shows as a lead etc. AfD is not a clean-up service. Covers WP:MUSIC as well. BabbaQ (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging - @Coolabahapple:,@TheSandDoctor: and @Hegvald: now that the article has been improved.BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave WP:BEFORE to those who can speak Swedish. It's still extremely hard to find sources about her that aren't mostly about Lili & Susie anyway, that's why a redirect didn't sound wrong as an option. (-: ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 21:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still missing the point. Neither she or Lili are only known for Lili & Susie both have done other ventures. All sourced and presented now in the articles.BabbaQ (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Lili is only known for hosting a show that doesn't have a Wikipedia article. The rest of the article reports personal life/gossip information. Is the show even notable? ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 21:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Swedish sources indicating notability are just as valid as English-language sources.--Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Lonehexagon. Whereas her main claim to fame is being part of the aforementioned duo, there's also other information, relevant mainly in an article about her rather than the band, that's relevant to the general public. /Julle (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - I pinged the three editors who !voted before the improvements of the article. No one have decided to re-evaluate or comment on the improved article. BabbaQ (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my apologies for the delay in my response, and I do thank you for the ping BabbaQ. As is stated in WP:MUSICBIO, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". My major concern is the lack of reliable and credible sources. I still feel that there is not enough coverage within the article (or present elsewhere). Most of the citations are not in depth or anything individual (or are interviews, which themselves do not contribute to notability).

Before I go into the references in the article, I will point out that I used Google Chrome's page translation feature to assess the contents as I do not speak/read Swedish. (Not that I think that that would influence anything, just stating for those curious and just in case there was a translation error or something)

The first reference is about the group as a collective, not Susie as an individual (aftonbladet is also a tabloid)
The second is a chart listing demonstrating that the group Lili & Susie are notable per WP:BAND criterion #2
The third proves that Susie is a part of Lili & Susie, but does not demonstrate individual notability per the above
The fourth demonstrates that the group Lili & Susie are notable per WP:BAND criterion #2, not her as an individual
The fifth is a tabloid interview and about the group, not demonstrating the individual notability of Susie
The sixth is an interview with Susie about the collective/group.
The seventh is an interview with the two of them about a music video by the collective
The eigth is a biography of the duo, it does not prove any independent notability for Susie.
The ninth is also in Lili's article and is about the two of them as (based on language in article and the FB page being referred to as "their" in the plural form) a collective
The tenth is a tabloid article about how much they love Susie in a music video for Lili & Susie (duo)
The eleventh is a tabloid interview with Susie, not demonstrating individual notability.

As I stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lili Päivärinta, if there are (reliable) sources out there that I may have missed (a possibility as we are all human) that help prove individual/independent notability and they are brought forward, I will happily reconsider and strike my redirect !vote in favour of a different one. I hope that this helps to explain my concerns. I thank you again for the ping. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that medialike Expressen, Aftonbladet are the leading newspapers in Sweden and not tabloids read only for celeb gossip. I do think there are something lost in translation here. BabbaQ (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that you seem to ignore the fact that all sources do confirm what is stated about the individual concerning songwriting, singing, and television appearances. But that is up to you. I think that there are some "lost in translation" and "other country, I don't know" going on here. Swedish editors with knowledge about here have all !voted Keep. Anyway thanks for your input. BabbaQ (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per Lonehexagon. She is also a song writer for the band... but wrote the songs. Adville (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Talented songwriter with many hits is totally worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has composed hit songs apart from the duo so passes WP:COMPOSER on her own right so qualifies for a standalone article and there are enough sources to verify passing WP:COMPOSER Atlantic306 (talk) 17:03, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Ajulo[edit]

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

The article is difficult to read, but it reads part like a chronological recount of a lawyer's life and part like a CV without many independent references, is mostly unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up little. Unfortunately, the article does not pass WP:GNG and lacks sufficient reliable sources (WP:BEFORE or present in article). The non-profit he is director of was recently deleted at AfD as well. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:39, 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. Killiondude (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kennedy (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Triggerbit (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yet another in the many hundreds of articles created in open defiance of sports notability standards by an editor eventually community banned from new article creation, the subject of this one had an ephemeral and undistinguished minor league career. Fails every iteration of NHOCKEY ever extant, no evidence he can meet the GNG. Ravenswing 09:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comment that he should be kept because he should be deleted. However, this isn't quite true, nhockey at one point said 100 pro games in the minors was enough, we upped the number at one point. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a shame that he didn't get to play for the Ducks (or any other NHL team), or we would not be having this conversation. Sadly fails WP:NHOCKEY. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:19, 30 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.