< 8 May	10 May >

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. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lakker[edit]

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

~~NN, no RS, somewhat promotional (see the links and description in the lead). Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to expand the article with additional information about the duo which I hope shows them as meeting notoriety requirements - between notable radio plays, various multimedia conference workshops/talks, and their project with the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision. I hope I am meeting Wikipedia formatting guidelines and approaches. I assume "NN" means "Not notable"? I don't know what "RS" or "GNG" stand for. I'm a bit of a noob on Wikipedia editing! Any recommendations or guidance appreciated! I know they've also been featured by Ableton in promotional material - not sure if that helps at all? I'll have to keep digging on additional information. If they are deleted, is the content of the page retained for further editing and resubmission once notoriety requirements are met? Alex Leonard (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. Thanks! Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:32, 10 May 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. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument presented for deletion. As noted in the comments, even if the article is split into two new articles, the history must be retained for attribution. That discussion should occur on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partition and secession in California[edit]

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

should be split as these are distinct concepts and this page title isn't worth keeping as a WP:DAB entry with two links. A redirect would be WP:XY Prisencolin (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but split and rename. I don't think this is the scope of AFD. I think you want WP:SPLIT. You certainly could not delete the article if the intent is to split it; that would lose the attributions in the history that are required by the Creative Commmons licensing model. TJRC (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable. The split as per TJRC, and follow the instructions there so that history can be maintained. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't see a point of splitting. While I know they're different ideas, but have few things in common that these proposals 1) try to change the current situation of under-representation, 2) likely require some kind of statewide ballot initiative, 3) likely require approval from U.S. Congress. Nobody here is suggesting using violence or civil war to achieve the goal (which has happened in some other countries), which would have set those advocates apart from others. Acnetj (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One involves separating from the U.S., the other remaining in the U.S. but subdivided. It's been pretty well-settled since the last attempt that secession is not allowed for in the Constitution, whereas subdivision clearly is, and has been done before (giving rise to Maine, and then later West Virginia, although that last one was a little bit iffy). This strikes me as a pretty big difference, enough to make them separate topics and justifying a split.

But again, this really isn't the forum to try to determine the merits of splitting. TJRC (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My original point is that these proposals may involve very different outcomes but have a lot more in common (the reason for them, the process necessary to get it going, etc) than apart. I think splitting the articles depending on the outcomes of these plans don't really give a complete picture than if they're combined like this page. Acnetj (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There hasn't been much if any major reorganization of government structure in modern times for modern, well developed economies like in California (it is the 5th largest). So whatever history US had with partition and secession won't completely apply here. Acnetj (talk) 00:33, 11 May 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. Enigma^msg 05:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Nicole Brooks[edit]

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

Not notable as an academic. Main claim to fame seems to be as a reviewer. Page is borderline promotional as it stands. Deb (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads more like a résumé than a Wikipedia article.Trillfendi (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above consensus. Seems to fail WP:BIO as a search for this individual returns insufficient third-party sources. Editor10293813 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON, no notability evident through WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or other criteria. As she continues along her academic career track, presumably she'll publish some books and we can use the reviews of them as the basis for notability. But we're far from that point now. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. None of the additional criteria in WP:NBIO are met, and sourcing fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 19:54, 16 May 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. With current and additional sources, consensus is clear to keep. A potential merger to the town's article can always be discussed on the talk page. So Why 14:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Public Library[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is my local library. I love it. A lot. But I am not convinced by either the sources used or the previous deletion discussions that it really is notable. Yes, it was one of the first libraries in Alaska to be LEED certified. I do not believe that confers automatic notability. Other than that the coverage is routine local coverage of the local library. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smallish public library. Zero notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a small history section and will try to find some other things to add. It's a nicely written article and I can't think of a good reason to deprive readers of reliably sourced information about a public library, no matter how small. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s basically a argument to have an article on every single public library on earth, based on a WP:LIKE argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, allow me to elaborate my position. The page is congruent with WP:ORGSIG, especially after the information I've added about their Top Drawer Collection. This topic is also covered enough (especially with the LEED status) to pass WP:GEOFEAT. I fully agree with all past AfD Keep votes. I do not believe every single library should have its own page. While I believe library systems to be notable, it takes a lot more to convince me that a standalone library meets that same criteria. To me, this page could be a little stronger, but it's enough to pass GNG, and therefore I vote to keep. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that a submission went through AFC covering the library system in Anchorage, which was allowed to be buried and deleted by AFC without any checks and balances by the greater community, something which happens entirely too often with AFC submissions. So your statement about library systems is nice to read, but "where's the beef?", so to speak? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ROTM local libraries, which exist all over the good old US of A. LEED certification is all good, but does not make it notable, because there will be more LEED certified libraries popping up. It is also not a competitive contest, any building meeting the requirements will get the certification (kind of like graduating from a school versus winning an Olympic medal). Acnetj (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this subject has been through AFD twice already and both times closed as clear "keep" -- I see no new information introduced here as the argument of "it's small" was already made. I'm seeing some sources that appear to pass WP:GNG to me so I don't see any policy violation. Without any new reason, this looks a whole lot like WP:FORUMSHOP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Look through past Afd , same nominator, same kind of starting "this is my library, but I don't think it should be an article, the the other people (after relisting once) managed to find sources. Then say GNG meet. Then closed as keep. This pattern is almost identical here. For clarity, let us just use normal GNG criteria. [1] = AP (not local), one significant, independant source and that's it. Others are all dead links, trivial coverage. I will try to search Google till now [2] nothing significant I can find. 1 good source yes I cannot deny. For LEED, this is the page that should be added [3]. Marginal source but LEED is an award that cannot be discarded. He is not WP:FORUMSHOP but just no solid arguments. --Quek157 (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, reasonable article. The fact this is 3rd AFD about it is a tad irritating. --Doncram (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like WP:ILIKEIT See also, WP:CCC--Rusf10 (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- with all local sources, coverage does not meet WP:AUD requirement of WP:ORG. The last AfD was four years ago, it is not unreasonable to revisit it now. Also WP:FORUMSHOP is a ridiculous accusation. What other forum was this brought to? AfD is the appropriate forum for this discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what that was brought up either. My thinking was more along the lines of consensus can change and that with a little more time in the rearview the LEED certification is not such a big deal as to confer automatic notability, which was a point argued at previous AFDs. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

did you see my post above with ap source?Quek157 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One source is a bare minimum, there really should be multiple sources for WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the page and my comments have other sources, wp:corpdepth requirements clearly met Quek157 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not clearly met, all the other sources are local.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

minimum is two in depth source, one local at most. Quek157 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC) can't you see the main criteria WP:ORGCRIT than the subpart at audience. I will say no more and let an admin determine Quek157 (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD clearly states only 1 regional or higher paper is needed. The Fairbanks sources are regional, almost to the point of statewide, far from Homer, AK, and clearly meet this requirement. So that rule has been met. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to town. local libraries in small communities may be important in the life of that local community, but they do not usually have the general significance to warrant separate articles. As would be expected, there are mostly local sources here, with two regional sources; such source are considered indiscriminate, because they cover everything from the area, whether or not of encyclopedic significance. To put this in perspective, this is a very small city of 5,000 population, which strikes me as more appropriately thought of as a village. The only possible special feature here is the building. But LEED silver certification (the 2nd lowest class of LEED certification) is nowadays fairly routine for public buildings --if the building is otherwise notable, we include it. The building has won only state awards, and has not gotten national attention. WP already has an article on the community, and that single sentence can be expanded a little. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of another AFD initiated by the nominator, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne M. Keller (4th nomination). Today's Google search isn't making this as easy to find as it was on the day I commented in that AFD, but I remember a real gem. One of the hotshit national journalists who descended upon Wasilla in September 2008 included in their story a quote from Keller that Wasilla was incorporated as a second-class city in 1974, but that she didn't know when it became a first-class city. What devotion to fact-checking, considering that last I checked, the local library (hey, whaddyaknow!) is in a lot more central location in Wasilla than is City Hall, and that five or ten minutes' worth of research at the most would have yielded the answer. I can only guess that hotshit national journalists consider it beneath them to speak to locals unless the purpose is to get a quote for a story. In today's Google search, I did find this from The Weekly Standard: "There are 7,000 people living in Wasilla, but it services about 50,000," as they quoted Keller in 2008. The city museum's page on Wasilla history says much the same thing: "The current city resident population is 7,028 with a conservatively estimated population of more than 80,000 adjacent Borough residents who patronize the Wasilla business and commercial center". I pointed out much the same thing in that AFD, a point which was aggressively avoided so that a slew of forum shopping and other actions in a related vein could occur. The end result? The small population of Wasilla within its corporate limits was used as an excuse to remove a whole host of content actually related to the city of Wasilla, which was replaced with a photo of a NRHP site located a dozen miles or more outside city limits. Many of you love playing the same tired old XFD game where slivers of content are expected to exist in a vacuum. There may be some of us worried about the bigger picture and how it's providing us with justification or lack thereof for the amount of time we devote to this project. Using deletion processes to try and force others to only acknowledge certain topics and certain sources certainly plays into that. In the real world, they call such an approach a "controlled narrative". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a little expand, source. Several statewide sources. Coverage of the new building meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you really love your local library, you would have already come across the book sources that I glance at every now and then which state that Homer's library had an unusually large collection in its early days for such a remote and lightly populated community and such a new library. Contrasting that information with the sources I see present in the article, especially about the library's early history, I guess the old Jimbo chestnut about "the sum total of human knowledge" is in reality "the sum total of human knowledge as found lying around on the web on one particular day or another within portions of the 21st century". The one book source I remember best was published by the Pioneers of Alaska. Are you gonna try and claim that to be a garbage source despite the fact that they typically employ an editorial process? That delves into another aspect of trying to exist in a vacuum, namely that folks are capable of noticing when fellow editors interchangeably view local sources as perfectly acceptable when it suits their purposes or garbage when it suits their purposes. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources in the article, I don't really understand on which grounds they are challenged. wikitigresito (talk) 02:12, 17 May 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. Albeit weak:) (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addi Tapaa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Outside of the source used, I cannot find anything, other than a Fandango entry and links to buy the soundtrack. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but fix the spelling of the name of the film. (Or at least add redirects if there is more than one romanisation of the name of the film.) There is coverage of the film, e.g. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050414/aplus.htm#5 http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050424/spectrum/main3.htm Not a huge amount, and both from the same source. Is there more coverage in non-English newspapers? Ross-c (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -Hard to ascertain, but agree with the above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Agree with both of the rationale's above, but looking at the director's imdb profile, it doesn't even list this film. But the two sources found by Ross-c are pretty in-depth coverage, and one of them shows that the film opened, so I think WP:NFILM is met. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilimall[edit]

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

purely promotional article, almsot to the extent of G11. They may possibly be notable, though the notices and PR in the references are not enough to show it. But if there is some notability , it would needto be started over from scratch . DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Definitely not yet a significant e-commerce platform in Nigeria, still has a long way to go to meet up with Jumia and Konga. Not like my first sentence is relevant to assessing its notability on Wikipedia, just that the first crop of references I was seeing were releases on how they want to compete with those two, which is normal for any new company coming to beat its established competitors, but when I started to search deeper I found out that they seem to have substantial coverage in Kenya, such as Africa’s e-commerce boom is giving rise to a sophisticated African digital consumer, Killmall signs exclusive smartphone deals, Int’l Women’s Day: Kilimall to celebrate Nigerian women with daring dreams with one of the sources calling them the biggest in East Africa. That in itself is not an automatic claim of notability, but it is a sign of noteworthiness. Since the nominator issue with the article is based mainly on its terrible state, I find it difficult to tend towards it being kept as I'm not interested in improving the article. HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilimall has more influence in Kenya, and I recommend keeping conetnt in Kilimall Kenya and delete content about Kilimall Nigeria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.77.106.156 (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ip user it doesn't work that way, this AFD is to determine if Killmall as an international corporation is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, irrespective of the varying level of significance each individual branch might have. If Killmall Kenya is clearly notable, this article would have been kept, but it isn't very apparent. Besides it is logical to think that for a subordinate to be notable, then the parent company should too. It's just like saying "Microsoft Kenya" is notable but "Microsoft" is not notable, makes little sense from my understanding.HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but with a recommendation to create anew - This is an interesting scenario as the company likely passes WP:GNG but fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. As of yet the company has not achieved the level of in-depth, significant coverage needed to pass the new NCORP guidelines, but many smaller news articles do cover the company. If those that discuss routine business news I consider to be irrelevant, but these stories seems to be more along the lines of news stories than business announcements. Then again, some could also be considered as trivial PR coverage (Kilimall does X, Kilimall sells Y, Kilimall opens location E) generated by Kilimall to increase their notoriety. There is also the concern that the article in question was recently (and possibly still is) the target of a marketing blitz perpetrated by a sock farm at [[4]]. My recommendation would therefor be to delete the article and apply the WP:TNT option to have a more experienced editor create the article in a non-promotional manner. This would allow said editor(s) to decide which of the many minor sources concerning Kilimall are notable enough for inclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - subject is clearly notable so I'd go with keep but I don't know who is willing here to remove promotional tone. Störm (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Strictly advertorial to the point of being G11 eligible. Notability is marginal at best; just an e-commerce company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tedious WP:ARTSPAM, supposedly written by the company's now former PR Manager. Feel free to re-create, if NCORP and GNG is met. Sam Sailor 19:50, 16 May 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. GNG found to have been unambiguously met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and Dean of All Trades[edit]

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

Article is entirely sourced to YouTube and IMDB. BEFORE search produces the following:
- Google News: Eleven mentions of which 10 are non-RS (We the Unicorns and Ten Eighty) and 1 is RS (a one sentence mention in a round-up article on HuffPo).
- Google Books: no mentions
- newspapers.com: no mentions
- JSTOR: no mentions
Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely does not pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the show has received plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources for example Entertainment Weekly, Evening Standard, Variety, Hollywoood Reporter noting Streamy win, are a sampling of some of the coverage. Disappointing to see comments based on the state of the article rather than the coverage that's out there. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Variety coverage is the following sentence fragment: “Jack & Dean of All Trades,” in which U.K. comedy duo Jack Howard and Dean Dobbs take on a variety of temp jobs with hilarious results;. The Hollywood Reporter coverage is the following nine words, appearing in a list: Jack & Dean of All Trades, Jack Howard and Matt Holt. Is there a reason to check the other sources? I have no doubt the YouTube show exists, but the mere existence of a thing is not proof of its notability. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should check the first two sources I listed as well. They have subatantial coverage. I look forward to you posting word count and noting the entirety of those articles cover this comedy team. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep YouTube and IMDB are no longer the only sources to this article. I found a couple more plus incorporated some references listed by an editor above. Article has been substantially improved with all the added references which have significant coverage from WP:RS. Thia article now easily passes WP:GNG and should be kept. Z359q (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two sources of coverage on promotional (i.e. non straight journalistic) sites aren't enough. The show was nominated but never won a Streamy Award. Fails WP:GNG. No company or person's article would be kept with only two reliable sources. Plus, having been discontinued, it's unlikely that the show will get more coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FloridaArmy. There is plenty of RS coverage to be found, e.g.
- "YouTube Duo Jack Howard, Dean Dobbs Return For Season Two Of Fullscreen Show - Tubefilter". Tubefilter. 2017-03-15. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
- "With New Series, Jack & Dean Bring Their Humor To A Long-Form Production - Tubefilter". Tubefilter. 2016-07-01. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
- "Jack & Dean: Internet icons are on their way to becoming stage stars". Evening Standard. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
- "Jack and Dean on Their New Series". Cliche Magazine. 2016-06-27. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
- "Review: 'Snatch' and 'Jack & Dean,' Rich in Clumsy Criminals". The New York Times. 2017-03-15. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-05-18 – via NYTimes.com.
- "10 Great Online Series to Discover". Den of Geek. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
- "YouTube Duo Adopts Long-Form Strategy, Moving Behind SVoD Paywall". The Online Reporter. 2016-07-08 – via HighBeam.

That's my first search for sources. I'll dig in deeper in a few but I wanted to !vote before someone closes this. Imho, the amount of coverage satisfies WP:GNG already. Regards So Why 06:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -TimTempleton Streamy awards were indeed won. Please see: [5], [6] for verification. Z359q (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, neither page confirms this. Both list the subject as nominated but not as winner. Fortunately, the coverage should be sufficient to satisfy GNG regardless. Regards So Why 08:42, 18 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Long Beach, California[edit]

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

I don't feel any of the references listed are reliable, and am unable to find any official site that mentions this flag; it's not on the city website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the background of this picture from this article. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - none of the sources I see manage to avoid being OR or the equivalent of picture mentions. None of the articles are substantially about it. It makes far more sense as a sub-section in Long Beach, California Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new sections and sources to the article and I think that it is long enough to be it's own article and not just a section on Long Beach's article. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent notability; or merge with the article about the area. -The Gnome (talk)

It is notable. It has been around for 50 years and it is put in the background with other flags (American, Californian, etc.) when people who work for the city are giving speeches. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ParadiseDesertOasis8888 is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We still need evidence of independent notability. Longevity alone does not make for it; neither does being "background for speeches," otherwise we'd have articles about "Pens on desk" or "Nervous assistants." Yes, we have one for "Lies" but on a different basis. -The Gnome (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the Flag of Birmingham, Alabama, Flag of Mobile, Alabama, Flag of Phoenix, Flag of Los Angeles, Flag of San Diego, Flag of San Francisco, Flag of Santa Barbara, California, Flag of Colorado Springs, Colorado, Flag of Denver, Flag of Jacksonville, Florida, Flag of Tampa, Florida, Flag of Trenton, Georgia, Flag of Springfield, Illinois, Flag of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Flag of Indianapolis, Flag of Lafayette, Indiana, Flag of Des Moines, Iowa, Flag of Louisville, Kentucky, Flag of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Flag of New Orleans, Flag of Baltimore, Flag of Boston, Flag of Detroit, Flag of Minneapolis, Flag of St. Louis, Flag of Billings, Montana, Flag of Las Vegas, Flag of Buffalo, New York, Flag of Grand Forks, North Dakota, Flag of Cleveland, Flag of Germantown, Ohio, Flag of Portland, Oregon, Flag of Easton, Pennsylvania, Flag of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Flag of Philadelphia, Flag of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Flag of Nashville, Tennessee, Flag of Dallas, Flag of Houston, Flag of Salt Lake City, Flag of Richmond, Virginia, and the Flag of Seattle all more notable than the flag of Long Beach? All of their respective articles have a similar length number of sources to Long Beach's. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, essentially you're saying "other stuff exists" in Wikipedia so why not allow yours too. I'm afraid this bird won't fly. -The Gnome (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Gnome is right - their presence doesn't help, it more points out some other articles vulnerable to AfD. Strictly speaking Other Stuff Exists can be used as a partial argument either way, but there are two problems with that: a) You still need a reasonable notability argument for this specific article b) a sample flick through of five of the above fails to indicate notability for four of them, so they can't buttress your case. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the article to include a more detailed history. This update uses newspapers from that era as sources and includes a more detailed background story of the flag to satisfy the need to be notable when compared to other American municipal flags. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Expanding back out, rather than 8 colons) - a couple of interesting sources - and kudos for tracking them down. I will have a think on the mention/sigcov issue on the 1st press telegram one and the Vexillological Association source. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep this as a separate, distinct article. It's not unusual for flags of cities to have their own articles and this is the sort of content that a project like Wikipedia was made for. Thanks to the expanded sources and citations added since its nomination, the article is much better now than it was when it was initially created. Cheers. Scanlan (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a wealth of information on this flag which is backed by independent sources. I see no reason why this City's flag should not have its own article. Freetheangels (talk) 01:34, 14 May 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 WP:TRAINWRECK. Anybody is free to immediately renominate any or all of these. But, please do them as individual AfDs, per the If you're unsure, don't bundle it warning in WP:MULTIAFD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Carrandi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 10:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed some in your list above - can you add the others you've PROD'ed GiantSnowman. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreeing as it does not meet WP:GNG -Handoto 00:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handoto (talk • contribs)
Comment, "(never played in a fully-professional league). For the avoidance of doubt, the Liga MX Femenil is not fully-professional and appearing in it does not confer notability.", WP:NSPORTS - "This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...", if Liga MX Femenil is indeed "the highest division of women's football in Mexico.", does it matter that it is not fully professional? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because otherwise we would have articles about players in the top-league of every country in the world - see WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if it is deemed to be "major" (of course not to be decided here but at the relevant project talkpage) why not? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deemed by whom? A WikiProject (understandably) determined to retain articles within their narrow remit? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Simply does not compute with either of the relevant notability guidelines. Giant Snowman 14:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no, deemed by the wikicommunity, it is nsports that says presumed notable if participated in a major competition not a single wikiproject, if the wikicommunity agrees with the "narrow" guidelines of some wikiprojects and to clarify the apparent contradition here, the word "presumed" that appears in nsport could be changed to "may"? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News results in the US indicate this article needs expansion and improved referencing per WP:ATD, not deletion. She plays in the highest league in Mexico. I bet I can guess who will close this AfD. Hmlarson (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 pages nominated. You have tried to improve one of them. What about the rest? Giant Snowman 08:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split them up and we'll get to work GiantSnowman. You're welcome to help us improve the articles. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These need separate AfDs (per WP:MULTIAFD policy reference inserted 5/2/18 ). So we can address each one individually. Hmlarson (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, a simple Google News search for Priscila Padilla yielded a number of articles. I've added some to the article:

"Daniela Pulido, del bullying al éxito femenil". MedioTiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.
"Tenemos con qué pelear contra cualquiera: Daniela Pulido". MedioTiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.
"Chivas femenil: Daniela Pulido: "Chivas es más que un equipo, es una familia" - MARCA Claro México". MARCA Claro México (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.
Redacción. "Lo vamos a sacar adelante: Daniela Pulido". Milenio (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-05-02.

Hmlarson (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Agree with the above comment that separate AfDs might be more useful, but at the moment, the efforts to add sources to one of them are not indicating GNG, with the majority of them being very brief articles or single quotes from the player. Fundamentally we are dealing with a number of players here who have barely played any football at all. Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole lot they all fail the notability guidelines for footballers, which are ridiculously low as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but 30k+ spectators would likely disagree. Let's see if they beat their last record-setting 38,230 attendance at the final this Friday. ref 1 ref 2 Hmlarson (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, do you think there will be more articles about the players after Friday? What's the timeline on this particular AFD? Seven days, right? Still waiting on the others to be created per WP:MULTIAFD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as according to the WP guidelines on notability, "an athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...", and Liga MX Femenil is a major competition. MurielMary (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that is not true, that is simply a summary synthesis of the various guidelines covered by NSPORT, you cannot use that to justify a keep vote. You have to use NFOOTY or GNG. NFOOTY clarifies specifically what is considered a "major competition" in football. Fenix down (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's true. WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hmlarson (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Viramontes Hmlarson (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Given substantial evidence that at least some of these may meet GNG, these should have been nominated separately. This MULTIAFD is wholly inappropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per [7], [8], and [9], the Liga MX Femininil has been professional since 2017. Therefore, these players pass WP:NFOOTY regardless. Smartyllama (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: they're about women in the same/team league, whose articles are near-identical. 'Procedural keep' does not apply here. Also where is the evidence that the league is fully-professional as required by WP:NFOOTBALL? Giant Snowman 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: The articles clearly describe it as a "professional league." I fail to see the distinction between that and a "fully professional league", a phrase I have never in my life heard outside of Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFOOTBALL's perspective, "professional" means it has some professional elements - "fully-professional" means that every club/player is professional. That's the key distinction. Giant Snowman 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that NFOOTY's authors didn't write those articles. In everyday English, a league which has "some professional elements" but isn't "fully professional" is semi-professional. The Wikipedia article on that topic confirms that. When most people who aren't members of NFOOTY, including the authors of those articles, use "professional", they mean "fully professional." Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most people don't know what "professional" actually means, hence why we have "fully-professional" as a strict requirement. For example, I remember seeing Scott Foster described as "professional", except, of course, he is not (and that's precisely why he got so much media attention). Giant Snowman 13:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the NHL is not a fully professional hockey league then? (And don't tell me WP:NHOCKEY has a different standard - I know that, that's not what I'm asking.) And you're saying we shouldn't trust the numerous sources that describe the league as professional because they "don't know what [it] actually means"? Why? Because you say so and you know better than numerous reliable sources? That's not how WP:RS works. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I said was desribing Foster as "professional" was not correct - in the same way that describing the Liga MX Femininil as "professional" is not correct as far as Wikipedia's notability standards go. I've been editing soccer articles for over 10 years, please trust me on this. Giant Snowman 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So all the sources are wrong and you're right because you know better than media that covers the league? I find that very hard to believe. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes :) Giant Snowman 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh, the idiosyncracies of wikipedia:))Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: - not wanting to re-ignite this, but in relation to the use/mis-use of "professional" - Wikipedia's article on Ladies European Tour states that it is "professional"; it is also described by such by third-parties (e.g. this, amongst others; yet it cannot be 'professional', given that many participants are having to take part-time jobs to survive. Do you now get where I'm coming from when I say that the word 'professional' is not fully understood? That is why, for soccer, we insist on "fully-professional". Giant Snowman 12:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SYNTH. If the sources describe it as professional, we can't just do our own synthesis and say it isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the source is clearly wrong, we can. Giant Snowman 12:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not only does a better consensus need to form regarding the original nomination, a better consensus needs to form regarding the appropriateness of the additional nominations within this single AfD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at the final(s) Wow, 51k+ at the Final last Friday ref. And 45k+ at the 2018 FA Women's Cup Final in England the next day ref. Not to get too subjective, but this is an exciting time for women athletes and their fans. Relying on an outdated notability guideline to attempt to delete articles about the players seems rather counter-intuitive at this point. Hmlarson (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, I meant to say counter-intuitive and counter-productive ↑. Hmlarson (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. High one-off crowds aren't a justification for notability – there were over 53,000 at the FA Trophy final in 2007 and 40,000–50,000 crowds at most Rangers home matches in 2012–13, but that doesn't mean that National League or Scottish League Two players should be deemed notable. Number 5 7 09:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:SIGCOV with only 2 references, one to a very short bio, the second to a page that does not exist (presumably not archived). The subject does not meet the very low bar set by WP:NFOOTY because the league is not fully professional as required. Even if it was fully professional the line should be drawn somewhere - the page contains very little information about the subject. The subject may be notable in the future, but not right now. One goal in a final and plays in a semi-professional league is all we have. Hmlarson, just because the guidelines are outdated does not mean they should not be followed. Perhaps you should work on amending them if you don't like them. The subject should not get special treatment due to their sex unless it contributes to their notability.

This does not meet the criteria for WP:MULTIAFD, similar subject, with different names or titles and different players of varying ability and coverage. Each page should be judged on its merits. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that WP:NFOOTY is a low bar for men but less so for women in that there are fully professional leagues in far fewer countries. Liga MX Femenil is the highest division of women's football in Mexico, a nation with a rich football history. The letter of the law may not be met here but I do believe the subjects of these pages do meet the spirit of WP:NFOOTY. --J04n(talk page) 19:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How? Giant Snowman 20:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that they play in the highest division of women's football in Mexico. When WP:NFOOTY was drafted (I'm obviously assuming here) men's leagues were in mind and the highest levels were fully professional. --J04n(talk page) 11:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But playing in the highest division is not sufficient (again, please read WP:NFOOTBALL) - it has to be fully-professional. By your logic playing in the highest women's division in, say, Fiji would make someone notable? Absolutely ridiculous. Giant Snowman 11:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are obviously not going to change each other's mind, but I did qualify my statement that Mexico has a rich tradition of football. Cheers --J04n(talk page) 18:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment MurielMary's logic is flawed. There are many men's leagues lower than the highest league in the land that are fully professional. It is not a good comparison. --- I stopped in for a look at the AfD list and saw this one. The page is one of the worst pages I have ever seen. In my opinion it does not belong on Wikipedia. I come from a background of editing and creating pages for scientists, authors, journalists and other notable people; the notability bar is set so much higher. "I graduated college with a PhD, joined a professional association and had a paper published in a peer reviewed journal" just doesn't cut it for notability. Here I see that "I played soccer in the highest league in the land and kicked a goal in a final" and the goal can't be verified because the 6 month old link to the reference is dead, is creating such a long AfD discussion, and its re-listed is just unbelievable. What else has this person done? Where is the in depth coverage? This entry is not worthy of an encyclopaedia. This person does not meet the very low notability bar set by WP:NFOOTY, she is not notable off Wikipedia and she is definitely not notable on Wikipedia. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

- Delete I just removed the invalid references. Now there are none. How is this even a debate? RobP (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Priscila Padilla and Daniela Pulido, delete the others - It appears that these articles can satisfy the GNG (e.g., Proceso article and El Informador article on Padilla and Esférico article and Life and Style magazine selection/write-up on All-Tournament XI on Pulido). I am struggling to find sufficient sourcing for the other articles. Jogurney (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, per nomination. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - for all the editors !voting delete based solely on NFOOTBALL, did you consider whether any of these articles could satisfy the GNG (see points above from Hmlarson and myself). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:SPORTSPERSON. There does appear to be more interest in deleting articles about women Mexican footballers than actual adherence to Wikipedia guidelines from some folks here. Particularly interesting when they have admin privileges. Hmlarson (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but I do follow guidelines - WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, I don't think anyone is arguing (convincingly at least) that these articles satisfy NFOOTBALL (and I don't think Hmlarson's comment above is constructive). However, failure to meet NFOOTBALL is not sufficient grounds for deletion if an article satisfies GNG. Sadly, very few editors appear to be willing to address the GNG (I know, it's more difficult to apply). Jogurney (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep WP:NFOOTY is a very helpful guideline in a lot of instances. Unfortunately, there have been several AfD's I've been associated with where players or coaches who fail WP:NFOOTY are not judged by the voters on WP:GNG merits (which they should have passed, in my opinion) and have been deleted. It's even more difficult for women's football since the number of notable players is greater than the number of professional leagues. This is a classic case: The Liga MX Feminil has come from nowhere to become internationally relevant in the last year. There's a genuine debate as to whether it's fully professional or not (though articles like this aren't helpful: [10]). The question for each of these articles needs to be whether WP:GNG is met for each player individually, ignoring the WP:NFOOTY requirement, and they should not be bundled. Carrandi herself has a ton of relatively routine coverage for her work with Chivas (the news specific to her appears to be too primary), but it's coverage that we would assume notability for in a men's professional league, since there's a ton of coverage. SportingFlyer talk 20:30, 17 May 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.

Codename: Sailor V - The Game[edit]

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

After removing two user generated sources, a WP:COPYLINK violation, flagged a clear circular reference, and flagged another source as unreliable because it appears to be a fanpage, there really isn't anything left that would pass WP:Verifiability. A Google search turns up a Kotaku article about a fanmade game, but it doesn't appear to be this one. It is very possible that most of this article is a hoax, or one fan developer trying to steal credit from another fan developer. The ScreenRant citation is a circular reference because the text is nearly identical. The text was first inserted into the Wikipedia article on January 24, 2017[11] and remained until it was first challenged on June 1, 2017.[12] The date publication date the ScreenRant article is April 28, 2017.[13]

From Wikipedia (as of April 19, 2017):[14]

The Codename: Sailor V - The Game - a side-scrolling beat'em up video game was a prototype of an imaginary arcade game in the Sailor Moon anime. It was developed by Vladimir Kutiakov's collective named "Caroline Software Incorporated" and released to the NEC PC-88 and NEC PC-98 system in September 14, 1993.

ScreenRant article (published April 28, 2017):

Sailor V did (sort of) get her own video game, though. A prototype of Codename: Sailor V – The Game, a side-scrolling game similar to Streets of Rage, was developed by Vladimir Kutiakov's collective "Caroline Software Incorporated." It was released on the NEC PC-88 and NEC PC-98 systems back in 1993. The game was based on the fictional Sailor V game from the Sailor Moon anime.

Do to the near identical text, it is very clear that ScreenRant used the Wikipedia for their research but did not credit Wikipedia in their article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the best source we can find was using Wikipedia for its coverage we don’t even have independent confirmation that the game exists let alone that it notiable.--65.94.254.248 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Maybe it did exist, maybe it didn't. This source seems to indicate it did. But, that's the only thing I found. There just isn't enough here to pass WP:GNG, nor is there likely to be. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that article said it was released in 2009 whereas the Wikipeida article says 1993 and mention has different platforms.--69.157.253.30 (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Codename: Sailor V with a mention. It looks like the game does indeed exist and should be mentioned along with the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck opinion, see my revised vote below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When trying to locate information on this game, I found this talk page on a Sailor Moon wiki, questioning the game's legitimacy and accusing editor "Dipswitch" of being a sockpuppet. Investigating further, it led me to this talk page in which Dipswitch, a "supervisor administrator (REALLY!!!) at Demozoo.org", vouches for its existence. The game's Demozoo page was created in December 2016 by a single Russian user. "Oh, the game released in 1991, see link to video. Why not official?" Dipswitch insists. That video was uploaded in December 2016 by a Russian. I found other videos on VK and YouTube as well, uploaded by Russians between December 2016 and January 2017. After an erroneous copyright notice is pointed out, Dipswitch says it actually came out in 1993 and "the developer did an error. But in the final version of game it's corrected." So now there are two versions of this obscure 1993 game. But it only started appearing online in December 2016, despite the "port" being released in 2009. The developer of the 2009 port does not acknowledge the existence of any previous version. Dipswitch points to the Russian Wikipedia as evidence this game exists, the same Wikipedia this English Wikipedia article was translated from. My conclusion: the 2009 "port" is the original fan game, and the 1993 PC-88/98 game is a hoax perpetrated by a Russian sockpuppeteer across Wikipedia and other sites since late 2016. It might be okay to briefly mention the 2009 game somewhere on Codename: Sailor V, using the Kotaku source. 1993 game is almost certainly fake and should not be mentioned anywhere without stronger evidence of its existence. Reach Out to the Truth 13:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3 as a Hoax. Evidence for this is presented above by Reach Out to the Truth. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2018 C)

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. Enigma^msg 20:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Comb[edit]

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

Per this analysis at WikiProject Rugby Union, Comb appears to fail WP:NRU. (He also fails WP:GNG).

During his active years, Comb played for Luton, North Otago, and the Bedford Blues. Luton and North Otago aren't professional league clubs. Bedford Blues was in the Premiership before 2000, and in the Championship after 2009, but Comb only played for them 04-08, meaning he missed the cut on both ends. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable NealeFamily (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree it fails notability grounds. Jkmaskell (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Premeditated Chaos's analysis. I confirm what ~~he's~~ she's indicated. There's some mention here and there in local press regarding his playing, but insufficient to pass WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No big, but it's actually "she". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: My apologies. I've corrected above. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, thanks for the fix :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG -- Dane ^talk 19:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not presumed notable under WP:NRU, cf. Special:Permalink/841502746#Heartland Championship - fully professional?, and fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor 19:38, 16 May 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. Except two WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes to delete, the rest agrees that the articles should exist in some form or another. Whether as stand-alone or as redirects (with or without merge) is not clear here but can always be discussed on the talk pages. So Why 15:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not match any SNG; might be fine with GNG (per the sources in Regine Tugade). Would like to have consensus to keep the article before I work on expanding it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that these types of articles are notable for large, multi-event competitions like this. Every other country at the World Championships has an article. I fail to see why this one in particular is non-notable. Smartyllama (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have multiple-nom'ed. I would think at least all of the articles with only one participant should be deleted, since that information can just be in the participants article. I did not single this one out for any reason other than I am working on Guam at the Olympics, and individual Guamanians, so it was brought to my attention. Kees08 (Talk) 19:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that info should be in the participant's article. Many of these athletes compete in dozens of international championships and flooding their article with details of every one, while definitely notable, would likely be frowned upon. That's why we need these articles -- to elaborate on individual championships in a way that can't be done in athlete articles. Habst (talk)

Likely should have been a multiple-nom of all these, but delete. The NSPORTS guidelines only covers these country articles for the Olympics and Paralympics; the Commonwealth Games are likely okay too, but even those haven't been enshrined into policy. Going into individual WC's and creating country by country articles is a bit too far into non-notability for my taste, the event-by-event articles are enough. No, we're not arguing strictly policy terms here, but, delete as non-notable. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that these athletes are slow as molasses, but I think just seeing that in NTRACK is really looking past the point here. Looking at the articles for Regine Tugade and Derek Mandell, these people are accomplished athletes in their country and there is likely significant notable coverage that could be included in these articles to improve them. Wikipedia has loads of articles on "terrible" e.g. football players in an international sense but we don't delete them because the stats simply aren't as damning in sports where you're not racing against a clock every time. Habst (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm advocating a model where edition-level national team articles are only relevant for major teams/teams with substantial coverage. For those that don't, like Guam, it makes sense to redirect the by-year articles to an all-edition national page, which I have started at Guam at the World Championships in Athletics. As for the statement about looking to expand the 2015 article, it's already pretty much complete, such is the limited participation of Guam in global level sport. SFB 22:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sillyfolkboy: Should I expand this AfD to include all Guamanian articles at the World Championships then? Merge seems like a good result to me. As for expanding it, I could, since it is only a table right now (just add prose essentially), I just want to do it in the right spot and not have my work deleted. Kees08 (Talk) 19:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, sounds like a good idea. I'm pretty sure the main nation article meets notability criteria. SFB 22:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sillyfolkboy: I really appreciate your fantastic contributions to athletics on Wikipedia, but I wholly disagree with your comment that that the 2015 article is mostly complete. I know nothing about Guam athletics but added a few sentences to it just now to show that there are multiple independent and notable sources covering Guam's performance specifically in the 2015 Championships. Based on the articles I've read I think it would be possible to expand on the impact of her performance a lot more if anyone else cares to try. I think it's very important to understand the greater cultural and national identity significance of athletics performances in smaller countries, which is certainly notable even with (very) slow times. Habst (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so all the newly added articles will be here for a full seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - (nominator comment) Merge to Guam at the World Championships in Athletics Kees08 (Talk) 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the merge has already happened. I don't think we need to redirect - having hundreds of redirects in the name space for each country and year will only clutter up the search bar and unnecessarily complicate navigation. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge has not already happened. Smartyllama (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is what I was referring to - Guam at the World Championships in Athletics#2015 seems to have all the meat there now, except for the date and location, but none of the years have that info. The summary medal count is there also. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Guam at the World Championships in Athletics#2015 only has one table per year with no prose at all. Guam's individual performances at World Championships seem to almost always be notable from what I can tell, and the national coverage is by event rather than holistic in nature. This lends itself to articles per event and year rather than just one for all years of an event, which I can find no articles covering. For an example of the type of content that could be created in these national articles, even when there is only one person, I just added some sentences to Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics. Habst (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are so many of these useless articles out there. If there is hardly any content they should all be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to create the content rather than delete the articles. Habst (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guam at the World Championships in Athletics. All the content is there already, so there's no reason to have this as a standalone article and nothing left for a merge to actually do. Reyk _YO! 12:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I voted against doing a redirect because if you think about it, taking it to an extreme, let’s say there’s a redirect for every year’s article – those are going to show up alphabetically in the search bar first, and the user is going to have to scroll down to find the main article, not knowing they can just click on any one to be redirected. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search results do not appear alphabetically in the search bar, they appear by a mixture of relevance to search term and popularity of article. Also, years in which Guam did not compete would not exist as articles or redirects so there would only be a handful of articles showing, all very improvable. Even if that were true, just because a country's showing at the 1983 Worlds might not be notable doesn't mean that their showing at other years would be notable. I think that the four articles at the top are notable and could be expanded. The prose in the 2015 article is already more thorough than that of the 2015 U.S. article for example. Habst (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly believe that we should strive to avoid coverage from weak sources, and at first glance I can see why we might think these articles are already "complete" and there must not be any notable independent coverage. But from just a little bit of research I saw that this is really not at all true. Citing the Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics article alone, there are at least four independent sources covering Guam's performance at 2015 Worlds in a non-routine way despite there being only one athlete -- and that's not even including the articles that aren't focused specifically on Guam. As with many other stubs on Wikipedia, the solution is not to delete or merge them but to improve the articles by inserting relevant and notable coverage in prose form. Having the articles separated by year is the best way to do that, as it makes it easy to just write paragraphs and logically relates more to the independent national coverage, which is almost always by year anyways (i.e., potential references are more often written about Guam's performance at a specific year, not Guam's performance holistically in all World Championships). Habst (talk) 03:58, 17 May 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. Enigma^msg 20:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Marshall[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur who's "legacy" is a double cup that has received almost no coverage aside from the two links here and certainly nothing lasting. The creator and subject of the article has even less coverage, with only a few mentions in the Forbes piece and all other hits are unrelated to this Cal Marshall. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. A strange cup design is not earth changing or even unique as I've seen something like that years ago. Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:BIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources to support passage of WP:ANYBIO. Just not much to go on here. Ok, he invented a plastic cup. Maybe the cup might be notable, but I doubt it. There's plenty of plastic cups that have been invented. But the inventor? There's just not much to go on here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 22:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the subject-specific notability guideline WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 19:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 19:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Poncha[edit]

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

Fails GNG! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions! ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions! ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep 2016 Asian Squash coach of the year [15] for starters, long time national team coach. "Architect of India's squash empire" {https://parsikhabar.net/sports/cyrus-poncha-the-architect-of-indias-squash-empire/17430/}. There are many nmmore. There is no reasonable way to assume the nominator bothered with before and found Poncha to fail gng. This nomination is disruptive! Jacona (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second source you provided is not a reliable source. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because you don't like it? Smartyllama (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Where do I start with this outrageous nomination? Many, many sources available. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and undoubtedly many more non-English ones. Clearly an absurd nomination, and this is far from the first such nomination by this user. Smartyllama (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Found plenty of sources and added in the article. Meets WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:29, 16 May 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. So Why 15:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Geraci[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, Mr Geraci has no scientific output whatsoever. There is no academic CV available online, nor I could find any publications on Google Scholar. He has enjoyed some notoriety due to op-eds written on Italian newspapers, and for being associated with the 5-Stars Movement, currently the largest party in the country.

Moreover, and as noted by another user, many parts of this Wikipedia entry are suspiciously similar to extracts of biographies available on his websites (they also include a number of grammar errors).

Finally, the promotional content of the webpage is apparent. For example, no serious economist (or researcher) would write in his/her biography: "When he was only 28 years old, he was already Teaching Assistant at M.I.T. Sloan School of Management in Boston to Prof. Jerry Hausman." Most graduate students are teaching assistants of faculty members, and most of them do so during their twenties, so it is not clear why we should be impressed. Similarly, it is a bit unusual to read in the very first paragraph of the "Works" section that he "manages a Facebook page and a personal blog dealing with China’s current economic affairs."

To be clear, Mr Geraci has a respectable biography and is probably a competent individual. However, such an impressing Wikipedia entry may be misleading. For example, in a characteristic example of sloppiness of the Italian press, in the article linked below he is interviewed on issues such as tax policy and minimum income. These are hugely complex topics and, by reading such a "stellar" resume, the readers may give too much weight to his opinion, despite the fact that he has never done any serious research. Certainly that seems to be the case for the reporter, who appears to draw extensively upon his Wikipedia entry to introduce Mr Geraci.

https://www.corriere.it/politica/18_maggio_03/prof-cinese-che-mette-d-accordo-lega-m5s-flat-tax-reddito-cittadinanza-insieme-a9c32206-4ed7-11e8-aead-38ee720fad91.shtml?refresh_ce-cp

Creating deletion discussion for Michele Geraci Sicumerax (talk) 15:29, 9 May 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 May 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a disaster, and I see no claim of meeting WP:NPROF. GNG isn't met either; the references are things like transcripts of a lecture at a non-notable event, or pieces by him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, attack page.

Jude Collins[edit]

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

A Wikipedia:Attack page created by ApolloCarmb that does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). --ZiaLater (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received enough coverage and reception.ApolloCarmb (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR --Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamez42, he is not solely an author. Either way he passes No.3 of WP:AUTHOR. Just search "Martin Guinness: The Man I knew".ApolloCarmb (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: The article is a blatant attack page and I've speedy-deleted it as such.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Magazine[edit]

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

No references in the article (apart from IMDb pages that don't mention the magazine), and none found; different from other Atlantis magazines such as [21]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was inclined to suggest a redirect to Eric Kennedy here, but 1) I'm not at all sure Kennedy is notable either, and 2) Kennedy's page is largely a copyright violation of one of his own marketing pages. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wrong citations that don't even at least mention the subject. It is another example of WP:SYNTH. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to find specifics about it, and nowhere near WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 19:19, 16 May 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. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Souderton Indians boys volleyball[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability, and am not wholly sure what it is even about. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be about a high school volleyball team, which are pretty much always non notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school level. Clearly non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and very little content. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school sports seasons are almost always not notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable sporting event, fails GNG. Sam Sailor 19:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is slightly in favor that this is a notable subject. A merge can always be discussed separately. So Why 06:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Verrier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

vanity article on not-notable CEO written by blocked COI editor DocumentError (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 16:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It's ridiculous that we keep everyone who's ever played in a single professional sports match, but wouldn't keep S&P 500 CEOs. The article isn't blatantly promotional, the AutoNews ref is somewhat substantial, and stuff like [22] isn't PR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but encourage someone without a COI to recreate. I don't believe notability is demonstrated as it stands. Deb (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems to not meet WP:GNG or any of the notability polices. -Handoto 00:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handoto (talk • contribs)
Delete: notability is marginal, while the article fails WP:PROMO quite obviously. Likely UPE. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping their articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with User:power~enwiki. Chief executives of companies of this size are notable. As far as I'm concerned, this is no more than common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject obviously passes notability guideline as a CEO of notable multinational business BorgWarner. I also don't find the article blatantly promotional to support TNT. Just WP:SOFIXIT. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Power, I don't see that the current version is promotional. Galobtter (pingó mió)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being one in power does not make someone notable. References are limited here as well. -Handoto (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable chief executive of a very large and influential multinational corporation. Plenty of substantial coverage. At worst it would be a merge, bit best covered independently as stand alone article. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:57, 16 May 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. So Why 15:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirti Adarkar[edit]

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

Fails subject-notability-guideline.Had roles in films/theatre-dramas but failed to garner standalone coverage.Too Soon. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject lack significant coverage in reliable sources and can't see if she played a major role in anything listed in the article. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON to merit a page. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article had no verifiable citations. I added citations to support several of her roles. She passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." That being said, the article does need additional citations for some of the remaining roles. Does anyone know her Indian name so we can search for sources in her native language? Lonehexagon (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has done a few supporting roles and a quick search shows only passing mentions, In my onion the subject doesn't warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FITINDIA 06:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG/BASIC, and is not yet notable under NACTOR. Sam Sailor 19:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 04:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Chill[edit]

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

Defunct amateur sports team, no references or notability from when it was active. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no problems finding sources for the content, an interview of several key team players, etc. Royal broil 01:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given by User:RoyalBroil-thank youRFD (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 08:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Coomer[edit]

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

While he was a member of two notable bands, and has worked ith some notable bands, there isn't enough to sustain a stand-alone article based on my searches. Possible merge candidate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important figure (drummer) with several notable.bands and as a producer. Quite a bit of coverage in news sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)￦[reply]
- Clearly important enough that you can find sources that support this claim to importance. I couldn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination, since the nominator himself admits the subject is notable. Together with other nominations this seems more like vendetta the nominator is on. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I admit the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. Closing admin, please notice that no sources exists to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin The article contains two claims to notability "Ken Coomer was the drummer for Uncle Tupelo" and "Ken Coomer was the drummer for Wilco". Both claims can be ascertained by dozens of sources. Neither claim is anywhere close to being in dispute. Nominator simply doesn't understand basic Wikipedia policy. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet not a single source finds the subject worthy of being written about. See GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- With which references? The ones in the article? Three are AllMusic biographies are associated with the bands and the subject is only mentioned in passing, and the interview only mentions Coomer in passing. I could not find any more online, could you? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems to meet WP:BAND#6 is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. The rule is useful partially due to the difficulty in choosing a redirect target in this case. I can't find any in-depth biographies, but coverage like [23] should be enough in this case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND. -- Dane ^talk 21:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Guarnera[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on an unsupported claim that NPSL is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Believe this may tie into this deletion discussion around New York Cosmos B season article that is up for deletion as well? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 New York Cosmos season. NZFC^(talk) 20:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY. NZFC^(talk) 20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't the players appearance with Avellino Primavera in 2015 count as having played in a fully professional league? Avellino is a part of Serie B in Italy. Serie A, B and C are considered fully professional leagues in Italy and are listed in WikiProject Football/Fully Professional Leagues. In an earlier edit, there was more information of his time with Avellino Primavera and that can be re-edited if this is simply a lack of information in the article of the player himself. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniplexhd5 (talk • contribs)
As far as I could tell he didn't actually play for U.S. Avellino 1912 (Who I assume you mean when you say Avellino Primavera. But if as the infobox says he played for their youth team, that would mean he hadn't played professional and would not meet WP:NFOOTY. NZFC^(talk) 23:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the clarification NZFC. Transfermarkt had listed US Avellino 1912 as a youth level club (and not Senior level) when the player appeared despite being with Serie B. There also seems to be significant legal issues going on with the NASL having its Division II status removed for the 2018 season. So now New York Cosmos B (the players current team) is with the NPSL. I understand now that aside from the players questioned notability, New York Cosmos B is not considered fully pro either. Thanks again for your help.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he clearly fails WP:NFOOTY, but he also fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 01:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is not presumed notable per NFOOTY and sourcing does not make subject meet GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 18:38, 16 May 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 2011 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 04:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship Division B[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS Mdann52 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except it's not a season, it's a tournament. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a tournament, not a season. Also, WP:NSEASONS seems to apply to individual team seasons, not individual leagues seasons or tournaments. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dammit steve: good point there - but it was the nearest guidelines I could find. If so, in any case I don't think the tournament passes WP:GNG, so I don't see what the keep is based on! Mdann52 (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its based on the fact that the article was nominated for deletion for failing WP:NSEASONS which it doesn't as it does not apply :) Regarding WP:GNG, the article obviously lacks sources but that doesn't mean they aren't available. I would suggest conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE, and considering that the medalist countries are usually non-english speaking, check for sources in their language to avoid WP:BIAS. Dammit_steve (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2011 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship. The divisions aren’t so complex that they need their own articles. Rikster2 (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2011 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship - keep in one article instead of spliting. Found a primary source here [24]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:38, 16 May 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 2012 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 04:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship Division B[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS Mdann52 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Making the same comment as at the other discussion: it's not a season, it's a tournament. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a tournament, not a season. Also, WP:NSEASONS seems to apply to individual team seasons, not individual leagues seasons or tournaments. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dammit steve: good point there - but it was the nearest guidelines I could find. If so, in any case I don't think the tournament passes WP:GNG, so I don't see what the keep is based on! Mdann52 (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2012 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship. The divisions aren’t so complex that they need their own articles. Rikster2 (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2012 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship. Keep in one article instead of splitting it into 2. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's clear that no useful discussion will happen with the pages being bundled like this instead of them being nominated individually based on each page's merits. So Why 15:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 2 (House of Cards)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

I believe the articles fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines. They primarily consist of plot and cast sections, with a few lines being devoted to the reception of each episode. It seems obvious to me that it was initially intended by the creator of these pages for every episode of House of Cards to have its own stand-alone article, but this idea was shortly abandoned. Furthermore, all thirteen episodes of the season were released on the same day, so focus was given on the season as a whole. On the other hand, i understand keeping the article Chapter 1 (House of Cards) for the first episode of the series, which meets the notability guidelines, it is sufficiently developed and could serve as an extended introduction for the readers. -- Radiphus 06:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the reason for these not becoming redirects to House of Cards (season 1)? Thincat (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the episode articles were created almost 2 years ago, i thought it would be better to discuss about it first. This process would also delete the history of the pages, so we wouldn't have to think about it again. -- Radiphus 08:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What criteria under WP:BUNDLE led you to nominating these together?

Identical content with different titles - Nope
Hoax articles - Nope
Same articles - Nope
Identical manufactured product - Nope

Sounds to me like this needs a procedural close and each one nominated individually - Galatz ^Talk 10:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BUNDLE offers the points you've listed above as examples, not as the definitive criteria. It also states that in cases where you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together, it would be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. That's exactly the case here. According to the reasoning i have offered above, i wouldn't want let's say "Chapter 3" to be kept and "Chapter 6" to be deleted. This could have happened, had i nominated the articles individually. Either all of them should be deleted together, or all of them should be kept as the result of this discussion. -- Radiphus 11:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because I see certain ones expanded more than others with more sourcing. I also think its kind of silly to delete these when Chapter 1, most of the article could apply to all of season 1. I haven't gone line by line through it but I bet most of that info is already on the season 1 page. - Galatz ^Talk 11:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appropriate to first read the articles, and then state your opinion regarding whether they should be deleted or not. As i said, i believe that either all of them should be deleted together or none of them should. I will not make any changes to the nomination, which you can always oppose for your own reasons. -- Radiphus 11:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what in what I wrote makes you think I have not read them, but I already gave my opinion - Galatz ^Talk 13:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bundled nomination here seems perfectly well justified. I'm neutral as to the outcome here; AV Club has articles on each episode ([25]) and I'm sure other sites do as well, but that's not really WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The bar to keep TV episodes is generally very low. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:05, 12 May 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. Merger can always be discussed on talk page. So Why 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Heidorn[edit]

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

While he was a member of two notable bands, there isn't enough to sustain a stand-alone article based on my searches. Possible merge candidate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News turns up quite a bit of coverage. Notavle roles in several major bands. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sixty-six trivial mentions. No in-depth coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I would probably support a merge but him playing in two notable bands makes this a bit of a tricky case where to merge the material. He was of course a subjet of the Uncle Tupelo/Wilco book and has also given a number of interviews, so the basic biographical facts should be ascertainable. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- He was thee subject of the book? Wasn't it the band? I haven't seen the interviews online. Perhaps they were print-only. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quick google for "Mike Heidorn interview" produces about a dozen links, from blogs to established sources like Modern Drummer or WMBR. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I saw all of them. Modern Drummer is a short piece. WMBR is a link to Facebook, which links to an on-air interview that is 404. So again, based on my searches, we don't have enough for an article. Are there sources I'm not seeing? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Based on your searches we don't have enough what you consider "enough for an article". Who cares. The claim to notability, drummer in two notable bands, has been ascertained, the rest is housekeeping matter. This is just another frivolous AfD. If you think the information should be put somewhere else, put it somewhere else and merge. No admin action needed. It's amazing that this crap is still going on ten years later. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Right. But what I consider enough is in-line with what the project does. So I'll state it as plainly as your assault on my character: either provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or admit that the subject isn't notable. It's amazing that this sort of unsupported claim is still being made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's notable but whoever put this stub up did this guy a disservice. They haven't established notability and done their due diligence. Most importantly the editor didn't do the work needed to create a basic article on anyone. I don't have the energy, time, or interest in doing this work but Wilco etc have a ton a fans who can do this. If someone doesn't do this then delete the article. But really he is notable. So problematic. Bad editing on the part of whoever did this. -- BrillLyle (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uncle Tupelo; his other bands are described as predecessors or successors of that group. If BrillLyle or someone else can find references to re-create the article, that's great. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno Systems[edit]

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

This appears to be a "run of the mill" company that does not appear not pass the general guidelines and WP:CORPDEPTH tests. Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tend to agree. It's a fairly obvious COI with promotional intent, and I didn't speedy it only because of the "award-winning" claim. Deb (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although perhaps a weakish one. Yes the article has been created by an SPA, probably COI, and initial intention was probably promotional, and my first impulse was delete. However, on searching there is I suggest just sufficient WP:NEXIST of sufficiently independent sources, even if "within the industry", to get this over the WP:GNG line. There are some I think to allow more depth to be added to the article too, including security bugs in their software. COI is not a problem as long as the article has a balanced NPOV presentation. Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete boring directory entry. Fails WP:NCORP. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article describing a recent new company. The industry awards for the firm and its CEO do not appear notable in their own right and I am seeing nothing to indicate this to be more than a firm going about its business; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subtle WP:ARTSPAM. A sentence like "claiming to fill a major gap in building operational intelligence in Australia" is lifted off http://www.airmaster.com.au/projecthaystack/: " filling a major gap in building operational intelligence in Australia", the Services section is predictably sounding like a rewrite of an About page, awards are non-notable, and sources are week. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG, delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 18:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Inter-Korean Cup[edit]

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

I saw Bapreme and an IP had an edit war about PROD, the original PROD concern is: Can't find any sources", as the creator says in their edit summary. No sources means no WP:GNG and hence no article Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability for this match (currently), though there might be in due course given the relationship between these two nations. Giant Snowman 10:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no source provided, no evidence that this fixture is planned (no mention on FIFA.com or the KFA website, no reason why this match would be more notable than any listed on :North Korea–South Korea football rivalry, article creator says they don't have any sources and based it on an edit to the North Korea national team article which also has no source. OZOO (t) (c) 10:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My initial PROD concern remains unaddressed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails WP:V. Septrillion (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real source on here and a real quick look up on google is the same on that front. Animation is developing 03:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per totally wp:crystal and what is a edit war about prod. Just bring it to an Afd if IP reverts, isn't that the procedure. --Quek157 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Could be notable once the match takes place but not currently. Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7, I can't find a single source that confirms this. Sam Sailor 18:22, 16 May 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. So Why 14:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss United Continents U.S.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I find it vaguely notable and it doesn't have any sources cited. Went online but can barely find any reliable sources. Same goes with the main page, Miss United Continents. Just a listcruft if you as me. EROS ^message 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Miss United Continents was deleted after an AFD, and speedied db-g5 in 2016. Yet, there's a Miss United Continent from 2013, unsourced, which appears to be about Miss United Continents. Not sure what to do with that... The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:42, 9 May 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. Other AFD closed as merge. So Why 14:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sea Games[edit]

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

If I understand correctly, only one contest, the 2007 Black Sea Games, was ever held. There has been an "expand from" tag for five years, but it appears that that corresponding article only has one source that is not even used in-line. Apart from that, the article is practically just a very long, terribly formatted table/list algamation. This is not a viable or notable topic for Wikipedia.. Lordtobi (✉) 13:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2007 Black Sea Games article, which has cited to substantial coverage, into this one. And Keep. Major spprting event. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and merge 2007 Black Sea Games. Sporting event with international scope. Sam Sailor 18:12, 16 May 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 Black Sea Games. So Why 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Black Sea Games[edit]

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

If I understand correctly, this was the only contest of the Black Sea Games that was ever held. There has been an "expand from" tag on the series' article for five years, but it appears that that corresponding article only has one source that is not even used in-line. The corresponding article for this one is a redirect to the aformentioned bad-sourced article. Apart from that, the article is practically just a very long, terribly formatted table/list algamation. The two sources that are included in this article do not appear to be reliable. This is not a viable or notable topic for Wikipedia.. Lordtobi (✉) 13:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge major sporting event. Only one article needed on subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is serious absence of WP:RS in the article, or outside it. It certainly does not pass the WP:GNG. The extensive tables listing medalists are the only content in the article but can't be sourced to anything and may, therefore, be a WP:BLP issue. Chetsford (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this into Black Sea Games. Sporting event with international scope. Sam Sailor 18:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti Parwha Kaur Khalsa[edit]

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage.Trivial mentions in a few books around the broader locus of the cult and almost exclusively in self-published sources.Has held some vanity position(s) and wrote some utterly non-notable stuff.Overall, she existed and might have been too proximate to have breath roughly the same composition of air as that of Yogi Bhajan......But, notability isn't inherited and he fails our notability criterion by a mile.

Part of a walled garden around Yogi Bhajan. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The article is also complete weightless fancruft. Cesdeva ^(talk) 20:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 11:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how this person is notable. She a yoga teacher and writer, so what? There many yoga teachers and writers out there, what makes her special?Freetheangels (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Baba's missing book[edit]

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

I fail to see much notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba and self-sources.Trivial mentions in related books are located. Notability isn't inherited.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

And, to anybody who's asking me that why I'm here, without ATD-R stuff, I'm unwilling to waste precious time and resources in t/p threads like this. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Failing to see notability is a valid argument for Wikipedia and I don't know if it can fixed or not, due especially to the known tendency of the group of people involved in Meher Baba to not promote their views. But the thing about a "walled garden", a "nukable mess", and editors that might be asking you why you are here, as well as writing in another AfD that I have been "wasting your precious time" (which I find very unkind) simply because I posted a few lines in your talk page, reflect personal views and bias that have no place in the deletion process. Hoverfish Talk 09:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hoverfish:--Feel free to search for independent sources covering the topic in a non-trivial manner and present them here for evaluation.That's the sole way, you can fix the topic i.e. prevent the deletion.Dazedbythebell a.k.a Sharnak is a certain exception to the known tendency.And, somehow, it seems that the inhabitant(s) of the walled-garden were trying to have some attempts at righting great wrongs by utilising WP to bringing publicity upon the Meher-baba-cult.Rest assured, these events are severely frowned upon and often end with disbursing of T-bans.As to walled garden, absolutely.Two long-standing editors other than me (See this and this t/p thread(s)) ‎have agreed with my perception.As to Nukable mess, absolutely.These blatant attempts at cult-promotion and related vanity-stuff ought to be nuked, on sight.As to mentioning my reasons of avoiding ATDR, I'm sure one of the AFDs will gather the spotlight of some of our esteemed members of WP:ARS, whose favorite argument at every AfD is that no attempts at ATD-r has been taken.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable sourced topic. Nominator seems to have a good faith bias against Baba pages (language like "cult", etc.), so the closer should please take that into consideration. Wikipedia has a very good Meher Baba collection, and, from the language used above and on one of the links to a talk page, dismantling it and chipping away at it seems agenda-driven and not encyclopedic (just to be clear because of the "paint with tar brush" language used, I'm not in a Baba cult - although I am also not in a cult ruled by Poppy, she makes us say that). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources please.......It's expected to find ample mentions even about the most of trivial events in anyone's career/life in his/her hagiography.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article does not read like any type of "hagiography" and it is not trivial given the established notability of Meher Baba. It is about his only hand-written book. Hoverfish Talk 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article does not looks like one, Bhau's biography does.And, it's pretty good old common sense that any biography of any subject will cover a lot of events in his/her life in quite details.Do you think all such events deserve an encyclopedic article? Coverage in biographies can be only used to bolster up the verifiability of an article, only after it has been proved that the event is notable enough, courtesy it's coverage in independent sources.So, provide those independent sources.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No I don't think any event of the biography deserves a separate article, but I think this topic is important because it is about the one book that was hand written by Meher Baba. I and other editors of the Meher Baba articles are aware of the shortcomings of Bhau's book. But since it also contains carefully recorded historical facts, there has been an effort to use it only for factual references and not to include any subjective evaluations or get into any controversial issues. The reason I see for having separate articles for some few key topics is not to overload the main biography article with side issues. I was little part of the GA process but I know it has been plenty of work to reach there and I know this was an issue. Some of the articles you nominated can be merged there without causing any serious problem. I am asking for "keep" where I'd rather they stay separate even if finally they get deleted. I am sorry all you see here is "cult stuff" that needs to go, because I equally dislike "cult stuff" but my interest in Meher Baba's world-view and the relation of it to philosophy makes me see special importance to his original writings. Hoverfish Talk 11:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not how notability works.Feel free to merge a line or two into Meher Baba, but subjects that have not been covered by out-of-the-universe sources do not get a standalone article, at-best a redirect may be implemented......And, I will restate that the personal views of the editorial community (you, me and all other to-be discussants) are irrelevant as to the need of a standalone article and borders on ILIKEIT stuff.It is sources and only sources that matter(s).Obviously, the views of the editorial community matters as to the quality of the sourcing, determination of triviality et al...~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral. This article contains information about the only hand-written book by Meher Baba. The information present here comes from a big collection of diaries and notes kept by Meher Baba's original followers all compiled into a book by Bhau Kalchuri. The information in this article does not contain evaluations but historic facts. There were no other "independent observers" keeping records, so it's all we have to go by. Also the original diaries that were kept are available online (though difficult to search through as they are pictures of text) for cross checking. The notability of Meher Baba has been established, and so have some of his main works, like his main book "God Speaks". I am surprized by some of the trigger-happiness that is expressed in these deletions, also behind the lines, and the language used. I complained, but it seems there is a jargon of derogatory and aggressive terms used here that is commonly accepted by some editors involved. The issue of limited independent sources availble for covering some topics is a known and much discussed probelm in this group of articles, but there is nothing unenclopedic about the inclusion of this article. Hoverfish Talk 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, your arguments nicely put forward the case of deletion.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. No independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too esoteric for Wikipedia. Belongs on a Blog. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any independent sources to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:28, 13 May 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. So Why 14:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suzana Zafar[edit]

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

Actos/models are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. Apparently the subject has appeared in some music videos and in some TV shows but with minor roles therefore fails to meet ACTORBIO. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Saqib, She also participated in dramas. Not in one or two, in many ones. There are many Bangladeshi actors and actresses articles exist in wikipedia participating only in dramas.- Rafi (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Note: This user is creator of the page[reply]

OK, but with minor roles as far I can see. --Saqib (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources. First of all let me know how can you claim the point about acting in minor roles? She is the leading actress. Not in minor roles.- Rafi (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious sources. I cannot find a single source which verifies she has worked in drama with major roles. --Saqib (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then check out this source (I have added it to the article). Its an interview with Suzana Zafar and the newspaper is famous in Bangladesh. Check out the last question of the interview.- Rafi (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not sufficient. I need to see secondary source. --Saqib (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you need more sources like that for verifying? One is not enough? - Rafi (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" ^{[Username Needed]} 10:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Username, I agree with you. I have given sources. You can check the article out. Participating in drama or music vedio, there is no doubt in this point. But the doubt is about participating in major roles. I have given a source for this issue. Should I give more? - Rafi (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This source (published in Dhaka Times, a bangla newspaper. I did not added it to the article) also says Suzana Zafars acting in leading character. And there are many sources you can find like these in Internet.- Rafi (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more sources are almost always a good idea (Don't go overboard though, and make sure they are reliable) ^{[Username Needed]} 12:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing this conversation at User talk:Rafi Bin Tofa. Ping me or I won't probably respond. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib, I am expecting a comment from you. You are not looking at this discussion. - Rafi (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of comment? I'm not satisfied with sources. --Saqib (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you. You need more? - Rafi (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Provide some solid coverage here to establish the WP:N.There's no point in posting links to articles to establish WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have cleaned up the article, removed one non-reliable source and one duplicate of a press release that was included twice; what remains does not amount to significant coverage in multiple independent sources. There is nothing to show that she has had multiple notable roles; the Dhaka Times article above does say she would have a leading role in a drama, but one such brief mention is not enough. As for the interview in The Independent BD, that is again very brief and doesn't show notability at all, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 20:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I give you sources from Bangla newspapers?- Rafi (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She is notable Model and actress. NC Hasive • talk • 15:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasive: And how ? --Saqib (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Please try to see my above comments. I do not know why you stopped participating. Rafi (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above.. --Saqib (talk) 20:24, 14 May 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 keep-!votes can be summarized as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL but none demonstrated notability per guidelines actually exists. So Why 14:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wren Barnes[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

This individual does not meet our GNG or the SNGs for either actors or other artists. TOOSOON applies. John from Idegon (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is for use of fans who want to know about the actress films and TV series. Her latest work is in a famous TV Series Day Zero: The Series.183.83.49.160 (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC) — 183.83.49.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wren Barnes is famous actor in America movie Industry. This article have valid and reliable sources. not just IMDB source but also many news and event about her sources are added in the article Rwiki12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC) — Rwiki12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is popular and she acted in many Hollywood film.- Rafi (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON. Roles like "Girl Driving Her Car Away from Chaos (uncredited)" in 2016 aren't the hallmark of a "famous actor". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 10 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly God[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Sources unreliable. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salt - deleted in previous discussion. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failsa WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a charting album with a single. The album alone has an article. The subject clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria 2, so I don't know what Kudpung was thinking about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has had a song ("Water") and album (The Booty Tape) chart in the US, and has been featured on other notable artists' songs (Lil Yachty's, for instance). Ss112 02:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is very clear-cut as criteria 2 and 3 on WP:MUSICBIO have been met. Has a charting album^[1] and single^[2]. Has a platinum certified single 'Water'^[3]. User:zzRiven (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per zzRiven. Charting records, certified platinum. Meets WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 07:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The article only relies on one source so someone needs to get a move on that and there is some unethical advertisement of his single which needs to be removed, but since he meets notability standards I don't think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plat status and charting album/single as pointed out by others. References need to be improved to verify information about the artist. For instance his his birth/real name Royce Davison, Royce Rodriguez, or Robert Davison? WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:12, 10 May 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 EMD SD7. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 04:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern 558[edit]

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

source mainly picture and brief mention. a check on the internet found no significant coverage - WP:SIGCOV Septrillion (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I like trains, but I see nothing lending this particular loco notability. TOOSOON, if the restoration provides more coverage. Do we want to redirect to EMD SD7 in the meantime.L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from del/redirect to merge per below consensus. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with EMD SD7. Acnetj (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into EMD SD7 is a good solution both per our editing policy and our deletion policy. Sam Sailor 18:03, 16 May 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 Meher Baba#Silence. Clear consensus to delete. GSS correctly mentions redirecting as a policy-based alternative though, so I did both. So Why 14:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eruch Jessawala[edit]

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba, some other biographies and self-sources.Trivial mentions in a few books around the broader locus of the cult.Has written some books but fails WP:NAUTHOR.Overall, he existed and might have been too proximate to have breath roughly the same composition of air......But, notability isn't inherited and he fails our notability criterion by a mile.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, a very notable member and disciple of Meher Baba, and key to the Baba collection. Apparently this fellow "...was also the primary interpreter of Meher Baba's alphabet board, and later his unique sign language." So he translated for Baba, which is stand-alone notable. Amongst the many all-at-once new nominations of Meher Baba related articles in the last day, ones like this, which target key people and key activities of Baba's life, just seem like piling on. And it's a pretty big pile already (and to again clarify, I am not a member of any Baba group, don't know anyone who is, or have read more than four or five pages of his books. just trying to keep a good Wikipedia collection from losing much of its information). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So he translated for Baba, which is stand-alone notable.--Bah......You need to read WP:NOTINHERITED.As to the rest, there's no substance in your aspersions, to rebut. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Meher Baba per WP:NOTINHERITED. Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing sufficient to establish independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Mandali per discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Davy. Hoverfish Talk 14:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eruch Jessawala was Baba's closest disciple and part author of his major book 'God Speaks.' However, beyond that he has no notability of his own. I am strongly opposed to merging or redirecting, as no other article discusses him. A merge with the main article on Meher Baba would degrade the article (there are endless such disciples it could include that would add nothing of substance to it) and a redirect would leave people searching fruitlessly for some mention of him that wasn't there. Hence overtly dishonest. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dazedbythebell, wouldn't a redirect to Mandali, as user:Hoverfish suggests, and use of some of the language from the page, be a better alternative? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is they come to a page where his name is on a list, but don't learn anything about him. So I feel it is misleading to direct it there. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-WP:NOTINHERIT applies here. Being mentioned as a disciple of saint in what ever context does not make somebody notable (Even if the source mentioning him has a reputation of never being wrong). I would strongly suggest that the Wikipedian's !voting keep read the essay I linked — F R ⁺ 06:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FR30799386, there is no source used in these biographies with such a reputation as you mention. Hoverfish Talk 01:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faredoon Driver[edit]

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba and self-sources.He existed and might have been too proximate to have breath roughly the same composition of air......But, notability isn't inherited and he fails our notability criterion by a mile.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep'~~ Delete, per comments and discussion below of people knowledgable about the topic. This was one of Meher Baba's closest disciples, and lived with him for 47 years. This is one of a large amount of nominations of Meher Baba topics, with language in the noms and on talk pages reading out as very biased against keeping Wikipedia's Baba collection intact and complete. I have no idea why this deletion storm has occurred, but I've seldom if ever seen such a thing on Wikipedia (luckily I stay away from the deletion corner of Wikipedia a vast majority of the time, so this might be more common that I think. It's quite time-consuming to have to write on every page while the nominator has copy pasted his nom from page to page to page). I have to say again, to not be accused of some kind of cult activity, that I am not a member of any Meher Baba group, do not know anyone who is or is a fan of him, and I have never read his books aside from a few pages once or twice. I've done some edits on the subject but only on my regular edit runs. For me it's just that a good collection of Wikipedia articles on a particular topic seems to be the object of a deletion focus which includes very negative and obviously biased language, which I don't think is how these things are supposed to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That you stay away from the deletion corner is the sole reason, why you are so fundamentally unaware of our inclusionary standards and guidelines of GNG.
- At any case, I'm glad, to know that Meher Baba is so powerful that his closest disciples do not need any non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, (not connected with Baba's biographies et al) to get a standalone article.I guess that they are kind of auto-notable.... Eh?!
- And, does Faredoon's friends, relatives et al deserve an article too?! I mean they are close to Faredoon who is close to Meher Baba.....You get it?! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 01:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, Randy, how'bout making some valid arguments? Because, right now your's are being discounted right, left and center.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge to Mandali per discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Davy. Hoverfish Talk 14:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Faredoon Driver is not notable enough to warrant his own article. And there is no sense in merging it or redirecting it (as no other article talks about him, nor should there be). I agree fully with the AfD on the basis of notability. There are dozens of followers with more notability within the Baba follower community that have no article. So I am for Delete, pure and simple. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing sufficient to establish independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-WP:NOTINHERIT applies here. Being mentioned as a disciple of saint in what ever context does not make somebody notable (Even if the source mentioning him has a reputation of never being wrong). I would strongly suggest that the Wikipedian's !voting keep read the essay I linked — F R ⁺ 06:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FR30799386, there is no source used in these biographies with such a reputation as you mention. Hoverfish Talk 01:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Source added, but subject fails GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 17:53, 16 May 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 Dhuni. There seems to be a consensus among all participants that a merge can be done. I have moved only the referenced sentences of Dhuni (Meher Baba) to Dhuni and am closing this. Further discussions pertaining to how much of the article must be merged should take place in the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 05:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhuni (Meher Baba)[edit]

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba and self-sources.Notability isn't inherited.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article could easily be merged with the Dhuni article, as there is already a section on the use among Sai Baba followers. It could be a new section there on Baba's use. These are not the same as the Hindu use of the ritual, mean something different, and done differently. The only thing they share is fire and a name. I would be willing to help with the merging if that is what is decided. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dhuni per Dazedbythebell. There is usefull information for Wikipedia to keep though not as a separate article. Hoverfish Talk 14:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Whether a full-content or a selective paste merger is performed, I am not voting here for a merge "of a few lines" only. Hoverfish Talk 10:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Hmm..... A merge of a few lines ought be nice enough:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:34, 15 May 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. So Why 13:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panne Lal Yadav[edit]

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

Fails GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail both WP:SPORTCRIT as well as GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 17:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kresnt[edit]

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

YouTube hip hop artist does not pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated here passes any WP:NMUSIC criterion, and the sources are not reliable ones for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG in lieu. The only source that isn't a complete non-starter in terms of establishing notability is Complex, but even that one's just a blurb which is not substantive enough to carry him over GNG all by itself as the article's only valid source. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim, and a better range of solid sources for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS found, fails [[WP:MUSICBIO]] as well as [[WP:GNG]]/[[WP:BASIC]]. Sam Sailor 17:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Andy Gibb#Discography. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Best of Andy Gibb[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of an unregistered user, their reasoning follows Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC):[reply]

“Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM (all coverage seems to be press releases) and album notability is not inherited: this can even be seen in the article: one source is the press release and the other doesn't even mention the album. It also does not have significant and independent coverage (i.e. press releases and websites which sell the album [all that could be found on google] aren't either significant nor independent). Might be WP:TOOSOON, or might just not be notable - a redirect would do better. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 6:37 am, Today (UTC−8)”

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 19:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUM specifically states Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article. So why nominate it for deletion when merging/redirecting is possible? Regards So Why 07:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I propose a redirect, but I felt such a move was too bold, especially on a recently created article, hence the AfD. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [!vote added for clarity by another editor] There are so many album pages by lesser known artists with much less information out there. This is an official release by a pretty large record company. I don't see why it would be deleted. Lou72JG (talk)

That is a textbook example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And anyway, it is not the quality of the article which counts but its notability. Maybe, in due time, there will be enough coverage, but so far the only thing I can find is press releases or sales websites, so not notable. Also, the fact that there might be other non-deleted non-notable pages is not a reason to keep this one (i.e. in addition to being invalid per WP policy, the argument also remarkably lacks pertinence). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am finding coverage, such as here and here. Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are not much more than track listings, and one of them edges on being promotional. They also share much info in common with the press release about the album - different sources repeating substantially the same things about something fails to establish notability per WP:109PAPERS. Also, the fact there seem to be only coverage of the release of the album strongly suggests this is just "routine coverage". To be notable, the album would need to have received "significant coverage" over a sustained period, not track listings or press releases which date to two spontaneous events (the announcement and the release). As I said, this might just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have more than track listings. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Not much more" - they basically repeat the same info as in the press release. Also, the first of those sources is basically a detailed "track listing", I quote: "The 15-track collection includes all three of his US No. 1 singles" "The three further US top ten hits that followed that sequence" "All but two of the tracks on the retrospective are taken from Gibb’s three big-selling studio albums", and it then goes on to list them. Idem for the other link, "The album includes the singer's three chart-topping singles" "In addition, the compilation features". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Gibb#Discography - none of the sources listed so far are sufficient (they're either directories or promotional), and I doubt such sources exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Andy Gibb, without prejudice to recreation if the album gets some independent coverage. Keep the categories, because those are useful navigational tools. WP:TOOSOON at best; fails WP:NALBUM. Narky Blert (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Gibb#Discography - while personally as a music lover I tend to lean inclusionist, WP:NALBUM is quite clear - there's limited independent coverage, not enough to demonstrate notability. If this were an unknown company with less of an emotional attachment from fans, consensus would be easier. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Ju[edit]

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

This page was written entirely by the person himself, Evan Ju, who has in the online chess community the username of "Flashchess" (and also "Eilyisum"). He has also, on a sockpuppet account, created the article VelocityChess (also nominated for deletion) which was closed as a scam website in Dec 2017. The intention of both articles was to increase visibility of himself and his services where realistically in the chess world he is unknown. ChessFiends (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not commenting on the sockpuppetry/conflict of interest allegations, but he does not seem to pass the notability threshold. Holding the FIDE Master title means he was undoubtedly a strong player, but not exceptional. Winning a state championship, even at a young age, doesn't seem to have generated any significant coverage outside of local press to satisfy WP:GNG. He doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines set by WP:CHESS (see here).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCHESS and does not meet the GNG. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCHESS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Youngest ever NJ state champion" is not sufficient to be encyclopedically notable as a chess player, and the other article claims are also not enough. Quale (talk) 05:41, 16 May 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 Kochadaiiyaan. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 06:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rana (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article should be merged with Kochadaiiyaan, since the film was shelved after less than 10% of shooting. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested as uncompleted project Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge looks fine, but there's no need to take it to AFD, see WP:MERGEINIT. Sam Sailor 17:37, 16 May 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 rename to Brokenshire College. So Why 13:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brokenshire College Toril[edit]

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

A private high school/community college that does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Essentially unsourced stub since creation in 2013. WP:BEFORE does not disclose any significant, independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be not deleted thank you , I am student from this school and at least put some other templates rather than this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.157.152 (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Brokenshire College and increase scope to include all related colleges and schools. Toril is a small satellite campus to the main Brokenshire College and can be described in a section. The original one on Madapo was founded in 1954 and covers both K-12 schools and college programs [26] [27] The Toril campus was founded in 2003 and only contains K-12 and an extension of the nursing program. Main university has notability. [28] If Toril is kept, it should be infoboxed as a regular school and not a university. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ditto — It's not clear this is a sufficiently separate institution to require a separate article. An article on Brokenshire College should exist first and only if there is enough good content on its various offshoots should they have separate articles. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three high schools (or K-12's) according to Dep Ed [29], without much independent notability, so this can be covered in a single section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VelocityChess[edit]

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

This was a scam chess website discontinued in December 2017, and the article was written by Evan Ju, the owner of said website. Practically nobody in the online chess community has ever heard of such a site and the article's references only demonstrate that further. ChessFiends (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no significant coverage to satisfy GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEBSITE and GNG. I did not know this site existed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:43, 9 May 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 "keep" arguments are "she's polling at 45% of the vote" and "she's president of a major federal political party"; these arguments have no basis in our inclusion guidelines or policies or in established AfD practice. What we regularly do care about is either substantial third-party sourcing or meeting the WP:NPOL criteria. Sandstein 17:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marit Stiles[edit]

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

Non-notable as a political candidate FUNgus guy (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won yet — if you cannot make and reliably source a credible claim that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, then she does not become notable until she wins the seat. Her term as president of a political party might be a potentially valid notability claim if it could be sourced to more than just her own primary source content about herself, but is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts her from having to be much, much better referenced than this. And I'm saying this as somebody who's tried to start an article about her in the past on party presidency grounds: the depth of coverage she got in that role just isn't where it would need to be to make an article out of it. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a person polling at 45% of the vote, in a key riding in this province. In weeks she could be one of the most powerful people in Ontario. Deletionism is actively running wikipedia into the ground. There should be an abundance of information about her, on the internet, in a community-maintainable way.Spencerk (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of popular support that a candidate has in public opinion polling in advance of the election is not a notability criterion in and of itself. (And at any rate, where's your source for claiming that she's polling at 45 per cent? If it's insider information that you have because you're directly involved in her campaign, then you have a conflict of interest — but I can't find hide nor hair of that figure having been reported in any media at all, so the only other possibility left on the table is that you just made up a random number.) Obviously she'll qualify to have an article about her recreated after election day if she wins the seat, since her notability claim will have changed to one that guarantees an article — but merely being a candidate in an election that a person has not won yet is not an inclusion criterion regardless of how well the candidate is or isn't polling. If poll results early in the campaign were an infallible predictor of the end result, then Tom Mulcair would be Prime Minister of Canada, and Hillary Clinton would be president of the United States, and Olivia Chow would be mayor of Toronto, right now. But they're not, because polls can change over the course of the campaign. And no, "deletionism" isn't running Wikipedia into the ground, either — our entire value and credibility as a project depends on maintaining editorial standards about what it takes to qualify a person for inclusion. If we drop those, then we're just a LinkedIn clone on which anybody gets to have an article for any self-designated reason, and not an encyclopedia anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- @Bearcat: I agree that fringe candidates do not qualify for notability, and Wikipedia is not linkedin. But saying a candidate of a major party is non-notable, until being elected into parliament, is an obscene misuse of wikipedia's notability criterion, and clearly at-odds with the spirit of the project. Major candidates of political elections are critical to the historical record, and are ... covered widely in the press. This is awkward to explain. I have nothing to do with the candidate, and thanks for failing to assume good-faith. Your tone needs work. Spencerk (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki's notability criteria have been fine-tuned to allow inclusion of historically-notable persons without becoming a dumpster for political advertisements. (Not saying that's what this page is, I do assume good faith:) If we let all non-fringe candidates have a page, we'd have thousands of self-promotional political advertisements without adding anything of relevance to the historical record of the election. At most, they deserve a short blurb on the riding page, "Incumbent Human#1 faced off against challenging Human#2, a <job> from <someplace>." If there were reliable non-local references to her importance other than simply being a candidate, then her notability would be judged based on that. If your polling is accurate, and manifests as a win for her, then she will certainly have notability as an MPP-elect. Until then, a school board trustee mainly referencing her own Facebook page doesn't cut the mustard. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, candidates in this election that do cut the mustard include: former MP/MPPs, party leaders, city councillors of major cities, mayors of regionally-significant cities, newsworthy businesspeople, award-winning poets, title belt-winning boxers and an NHL hockey player. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I looked for more than routine candidate coverage. Like Bearcat I was unable to locate significant independent coverage of her regarding her term as party president. Fails WP:NPOL Gab4gab (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable unless she wins. Freedom789 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not currently notable under the significant press coverage prong, and not notable under WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 21:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article doesn't have any independent references at all. Being "President of the NDP" [30] might be enough for notability; I think the position is the equivalent of the chairman of the Democratic National Committee in the US, but am not sure. There's plenty of trivial coverage of her as NDP President or a member of the Toronto District School Board, but nothing more substantial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think being president of a major federal political party definitely makes someone notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if she were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for it. But it is not an "inherently" notable distinction that would somehow exempt her from having to be referenced to reliable sources rather than primary ones. Notability does not live or die on what the article says, it lives or dies on how well the article does or doesn't reference what it says. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Petot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1st AfD did not prove notability; but simply failed due to non-consensus. Content is not encyclopedic. Article reads as a promotional resume and advertisement for BLPs appearances. Online sources are either personal blogs, non-secondary or mere mention of BLP at best. Notability has not met guidelines due to primary source connected with BLP website, personal biography, blog, deadlink. Possible COI with certain editor(s) in history supplying information that cannot be found online or any reliable secondary source. Article is not encyclopedic, BLP is not notable. Lack of consensus should not have kept this page active.

COMMENT BLP's claim to fame is a possible quote in the Boston Globe that is referenced from his personal website "He is considered the predominant stride piano player in all of New England" Boston Globe Review Quote / Date. If this is true, there should be more to back this claim in reviews, articles, etc since 1997; that is a big title to hold with very little sources to back it up. WP has no idea if it is an actual review or a press release quote. The BLP has actually quoted this on his website as being a Wikipedia quote, not from the Boston Globe. "Yankee Jazz Beat" is a personal blog by George Borgman: [31]; and the 2008 quote cannot be found online. Only a 2014 mention of the BLP. All claims within the article are resume or promotional local advertising. If this BLP is WP notable, why mention where he will be appearing next in 2010? There has to be more for this to be a qualified inclusion at WP. Maineartists (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I don't see any claims of meeting either GNG or any SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Gainey[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the organizational president, but not the public leader, of a political party. This is a role that could potentially get her into Wikipedia if she could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that hands her an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if the sourcing isn't up to snuff -- but there's only one reference being cited here, which is a start toward getting her over GNG but is not enough to carry her over the finish line all by itself. If a person doesn't have an automatic pass of any SNG (e.g. by actually serving in the House of Commons as an actual elected MP), then they need considerably more than just one source to pass the "notable because media coverage exists" test. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing here is good enough as written to get her in the door. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Being the President of the Liberal Party of Canada is one of those slam-dunk automatic articles (every single one has an article, see Category:Presidents of the Liberal Party of Canada). The lack of notability argument does not really hold any weight when every single Yukon backbench MLA has an article. The article needs expanding, not deleting. --IDW5605 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC) struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, being the president of a political party is not a slam-dunk automatic article. It gets her an article if enough sources can be found to get her over GNG for it, and does not get her an article if the sourceability is not adequate. Presidents of political parties are judged by the same inclusion standards as presidents of any other type of organization — they do not have legislative authority to vote on the passage of laws, so their notability is not measured against the notability standard for legislators: it is measured against the notability standard for presidents of organizations, which is GNG or bust. (And incidentally, it's actually GNG or bust for legislators, too: the difference is that legislators always pass GNG because they always get covered by the media — yes, even backbench MLAs in Yukon get coverage, because Yukon really does have actual media that actually cover territorial politics, just like everywhere else does. But party presidents sometimes get enough coverage to clear GNG, and sometimes don't get enough coverage to clear GNG — and it's the coverage they did or didn't get for doing the job, not any sort of "slam-dunk automatic article" privilege, that determines whether or not an article gets to happen.) Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moose Jaw, which is the same size as Yukon also has media, but not even their mayor as an article. Do we give special privileges to territorial politicians over municipal politicians, even if the municipal politicians represent more people and recieve media coverage? Genuine inquriry.

Are there not cases where the organization is important enough that the president automatically becomes worthy of an article? If you became the President and CEO of Apple, wouldn't that automatically guarantee you a WP article because of the importance of the position itself? --IDW5605 (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the current mayor of Moose Jaw (Fraser Tolmie) does have an article. For some reason it hadn't actually been linked to from Moose Jaw's article until I did so just now, and it isn't properly sourced as getting him over GNG either and thus may also be vulnerable to deletion, but we do have one. And no, there are no cases where an organization is so important that WP:GNG is suspended for a biography of its president or CEO just because that person exists — in all likelihood, a new president or CEO of Apple would get the media coverage needed to clear GNG, so there wouldn't be a problem. But in the event that he or she didn't, the role is not so "inherently" important that the "need" for Wikipedia to have an article about him or her would override the inability to source it properly. Even a president of the United States would not qualify to have a Wikipedia article if they somehow managed to hold the role without generating any media coverage about their presidency. Which is not to say that we're likely to ever actually be in a situation where a US president actually has that problem, admittedly, but the principle is still the same: the notability test is not what role a person held, but how much media coverage they did or didn't get for holding the role. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's not actually a politician but rather the head of an organisation: the only coverage I found on her was a result of her election, and even then was only a few articles. Not enough to get past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 21:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat; possibly G5 due to socking by the page creator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 14 May 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.