Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 6 November	8 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Freville

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

Fails WP:BIO. The sources are either personally written by article subject/company, or are not reliable, or are just directory listings. Deleted a couple of times via WP:PROD already, restored by WP:REFUND requests (which revealed the article was written by a fan to "spread the word"). Time to settle this once and for all in AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons I listed when I proposed deletion, which are pretty much the same as the nominator's. ZettaComposer (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concerns with notability and promotional nature. -FASTILY 07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that WP:GNG is not met, and some doubts about WP:NFOOTY as well. Note that WP:NSPORTS (of which WP:NFOOTY is a section) states, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. ansh 666 06:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Sayoud

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

Scrapes a pass at NFOOTY but fails GNG. One substitute appearance is unlikely to generate sufficient coverage to pass GNG which trumps topic specific criteria. A case of WP: TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to vote in this case, but there are some sources where is either partially the subject of the source ([1] and [2]) and where he is the main subject of the source ([3]). If you look, you'll note it's not a mere passing mention, the article is about two footballers, of which the subject here is one of the footballers in question on the article. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source is nothing more than a report of a quote from the boss of the club he plays for, to the official site of the club he plays for, and to be perfectly honest when you look at it, it is neither in-depth coverage nor from secondary sources. Domdeparis (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:FOOTY and made his debut only last month on 4 October 2017 and currently plays for a fully professional league team .SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 20 years old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNG are there to avoid speedy and prodding. In the FAQs on the NSPORT page it states "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability." My point is that one substitute appearance is unlikely to have generated any sources so even given sufficient time to search they will not be found. Domdeparis (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So to resume, it is WP:TOOSOON. This may be his last appearance for a professional club; We do not create articles just because we suspect that a subject will become notable, this is an encyclopedia and not a crystal ball. if you like maybe a redirect to the club so as not to lose the history but there is no reason to leave the article as it is I believe...but I have been wrong before! Domdeparis (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A few minutes of play in a cup competition is the narrowest way to satisfy NFOOTBALL, and a review of online sources indicates there is no chance this article would pass the GNG. There is a long-standing precedent at AfD to delete articles like this (e.g., recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter Soomer). We should not use WP:CRYSTAL to argue that this footballer will eventually play more minutes of professional football and have a career significant enough to have GNG-compliant sourcing. If it happens, the article can obviously be re-created. Jogurney (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure to pass general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changed vote. I don't think that an EFL Trophy match qualifies for the SNG; 2017–18 EFL Trophy says that it includes Premier League and Championship "B Teams". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY. ansh 666 05:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Thompson (footballer born 1999)

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

Scrapes past NFOOTY but fails GNG. 1 substitute appearance is unlikely to generate sufficient coverage to pass GNG. This is a case of WP TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree with the "1 sub appearance isn't enough" argument since it's no better than the guideline in being conclusory and, unlike the guideline, does not have the mandate of the community. That being said, the single appearance was in the third-tier cup competition against a U21 team. So that is not two pro teams, but a pro team against a youth team. RonSigPi (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear my comment is not that it is not enough to pass the topic specific guidelines because it would be had it been a qualifying match (which apparently it wasn't) but as per the NSPORT guidelines there has to be sufficient presumption that his appearances will have generated enough coverage for him to pass GNG and that it is likely that the sources can be found given enough time. My argument is that 1 sub performance is unlikely to have generated enough coverage to pass GNG hence my nomination. So for me it is TOOSOON. Domdeparis (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that an EFL Trophy match qualifies for the SNG; 2017–18 EFL Trophy says that it includes Premier League and Championship "B Teams". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't satisfy NFOOTBALL as the EFL Trophy match against West Brom's Academy isn't a competitive match between two "fully-pro" clubs. Also, there is no indication the article could pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Redirect can be implemented after deletion if desired. ansh 666 05:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bayliss

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

Scrapes past NFOOTY but fails GNG. 1 substitute appearance is unlikely to generate sufficient coverage to pass. Topics specific guidelines do not trump GNG. looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Coventry City F.C.. Fails GNG. Very much a case of too soon. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree with the "1 sub appearance isn't enough" argument since it's no better than the guideline in being conclusory and, unlike the guideline, does not have the mandate of the community. That being said, the single appearance was in the third-tier cup competition against a U21 team. So that is not two pro teams, but a pro team against a youth team. RonSigPi (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear about my nomination, it is not that 1 sub appearance in a qualifying match (which this one wasn't if I understand rightly) is not enough to pass the topic specific guideline, it clearly is but what i am saying is in accordance with the statement in the FAQs here Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) which state

  A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline

My reasoning is that there is no strong reason to believe that 1 substitute appearance has generated sufficient coverage. None have been provided so I believe that there is no reason to keep this article. It is WP:TOOSOON for me. When the player has opened for the 1st team in a fully pro senior match then it is possible that coverage exists over and above routine match coverage. Domdeparis (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe the single appearance in the EFL Trophy match can be viewed as satisfying NFOOTBALL per Domdeparis above (Premier League Academy teams cannot realistically be viewed as "fully-pro sides"). Moreover, even if we assume that the match is sufficient for NFOOTBALL purposes, we have a long-standing precedent at AfD to delete these kinds of articles where a footballer only has a handful of minutes of play and its clear the article cannot satisfy the GNG (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter Soomer). Jogurney (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that an EFL Trophy match qualifies for the SNG; 2017–18 EFL Trophy says that it includes Premier League and Championship "B Teams". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MYLAPS Sports Timing

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

This article should never have been released from Articles for Creation in 2012. It's had five years to be improved, but shows no signs of significant independent reliables coverage in general news (etc) sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is about a Dutch company and not a Danish one and this debate should therefore not be included in the Denmark-related deletion discussions but to the Netherlands-related deletion discussions.Ramblersen (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see much out there for references in the English language. Of those I do, nothing would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Maybe if someone was able to provide something more substantial in Dutch. Otherwise, there really isn't anything that can be approved with the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is barely enough reference to meet WP:GNG. As a sport equipment company I believe much of reference to them (if they exist) should be online, but search shows nothing like WP:SIGCOV only their domain and adverts mentions kept showing up. The company exists, but is not notable. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- there is barely enough reference to meet WP:GNG - so you're saying they do meet GNG, or don't? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - They didn't, although some exists. "Bare" expresses not meeting threshold while acknowledging the effort to meet. — Ammarpad (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polymera (company)

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

This is not a notable company. References are routine coverage, niche publications, or non-independent sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a significant COI/paid editing issue as well, as the article creator claimed on his userpage to be "Senior Vice-President/General Manager" of Polymera. Peacock (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.Comatmebro (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The company is unlikely to get coverage outside of the normal industry publications. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and unfortunately I doubt they ever will meet it simply based on their niche. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2017 (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. Seems like we don't have any specific evidence of notability here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherissa

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

No WP:RS sources WP:V verifies the general notability WP:GNG of this artist. Therefore this subject may be unsuitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC) AadaamS (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - In my opinion the sources avsilable shows that she does have a career. A Google search came up with at minimum a few more mentions of her so for me keeping the article makes sense.BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BabbaQ (talk · contribs), which sources? Those sources should be added to the article. A source that verifies notability must treat the subject in depth beyond WP:TRIVIALMENTION. AadaamS (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Misleading !vote above. Showing a music career exists does not equal notability. The sources in the article are not indepth and a before search doesn't garner any WP:RS.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheGracefulSlick sources are not indepth and Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2017 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Mandelbaum

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

Seems pretty simple to me, article doesn't meet WP:BIO and is a stub with one source that can barely be considered a source in the article. Zorbo678 (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His book Not Since Carrie is notable. The author might not be, but since we don't have a page on the book this is close enough. See "indispensable book" and "a holy text". Pburka (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the book is notability treshold for sure. Notable. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Most-viewed K-pop Music Videos

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

Fails GNG/NOT. Indiscriminate and vague and overly broad and non-notable list removed from PROD. I'd give it some time, but I don't think that can change regardless of how much time is put into it. South Nashua (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly original research. Ajf773 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, it was already created under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_most_viewed_kpop_music_videos and debated.Evaders99 (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Stay Lames

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

I have been unable to find any information about this band in independent, reliable sources. The article says that they had a hit single, but I've been unable to confirm this. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find any sources that support the claims of radio airplay, a Billboard hit, or anything. It could be a hoax. Rogermx (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Billboard.com search reveals no mention at all of this band or the claimed charting single. The article contains no references or sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sushil Kandel

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

Fails WP:NCRIC, as they have not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. On a side note, I don't think the image is free either. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCRIC, no indication that subject has had sufficient coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NCRICKET and I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Has only played in lower level T20 tournaments. Galobtter (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a number of passing references to him in what appear to be half-decent and reasonable reliable sources (Kathmandu Post, Himalyan Times, Republica etc...). I suspect that these are superior to many of the sources we have for cricketers with a single first-class appearance, but they are brief mentions rather than the multiple, in depth sources that I'd want in order to be able to argue for this article to be kept. So, for now at least, I think we have to delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:CRIN and no indication that it would meet WP:GNG on other grounds. Johnlp (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't meet the notability criteria as he has not played even a single First-class or List A but only in professional T20 leagues. Abishe (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is undeclared paid promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Isaacs

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

This is a fairly spammy biography of a fairly non-notable person. There is a suspicion that it was submitted by an undisclosed paid editor (although I do not know the details of how that was determined).

The first version of the article was a blatant copyright violation (see Talk:Oliver Isaacs for details) and could have easily been speedily deleted but since then there has been a good faith effort to clean it up. It still scores 49% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and I don't think that it is fixable without reducing the article to less than a valid stub.

So to the question of notability. This guy does get a write up in Forbes, for what that is worth, in one of their endless "Top n young x" type articles, and he does get called an "influencer", whatever that means. He has even managed to get himself described as a "genius" (presumably not in the Wile E. Coyote sense of the term) by some of the rather thin sources. I don't see enough notability to justify an article about him and certainly not a plagiarised hagiography. DanielRigal (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No point in stubbing this back to zero, so WP:TNT applies. BTW the undisclosed paid editor issue is now explained with the appropriate template on the article's talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. The notability is all puffery and no substance. MasterB1aster (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditions (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Wikieditions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

UPE meat comments preserved

Hi -I've added / transferred my points from the talk page here>

Just to clarify, I'm a fan of Oliver before you start accusing me of things and have been following him for over a year on his social media channels and learnt a lot from him. I look up to him as a role model. I believe there is an instigated campaign to remove this article despite it meeting the notability and copyright guideliness. He is more than notable based on the below.

Oliver is a tech entrepreneur, having founded a number of well known business, cryptocurrency investor and social media influencer with a huge following online - he is also public figure verified across his channels on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. He has links to some of the most well known / famous influencers, and entrepreneurs in the world.

He has been featured among many others in Business Insider, International Business Times, The Next Web, Forbes (by notable writers) and has a huge following, network and links online. His videos receive in excess of a few hundred thousand views each time and he is linked to some very well known notable public figures.

To answer your points -you clearly write on the talk page: I had never heard of the guy until yesterday. This line demonstrates bias - you can try to explain it all you want but you are not following the guidelines and this is your own view / opinion too. I have no need to report you but as I mentioned earlier it looks odd that you seem very biased. I was merely making the point on the talk page there is no reason for you to have heard of Oliver as you don't seem to do anything related to tech investing or social media.

Re paid editor status not too sure why you think this is the case as there seems to be no link or proof of this. It seems to be merely an accusation and innocent until proven guilty should apply - again another way to discredit this person falsely - I'd recommend an investigation to disprove this. As far as I can see there is no proof of this and someone who had their account blocked mentioned it - which doesnt seem to be even related or linked to the original author.

The guidelines for notability clearly state: Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.

Indeed, there are many people on wikipedia who are not very famous - there are different levels of fame / being a public figure is different and he is clearly notable based on his achievements and reliable sources and much more notable than many people with existing pages- 15 million network, huge following, numerous full featured articles in major publications, verified across all social media platforms, links to very famous social media influencers like Julius Dein etc. You calling international business times not reliable again seems odd - not sure you can get more reliable than IB Times/.

Having this amount of followers and network he has also makes him worthwhile let alone all the other accomplishments he has done. I saw in Julius Dein's talk page who has 15 million followers you wanted to remove this article - then you changed your mind- looks like your just going around pages trying to have them deleted.

Your mentioned the article is plagiarised / copyright issues - its not / minimal -it clearly states on Oliver's site this in the middle of the site under any text:All rights released of content / pictures / and text and available / permission granted for the public domain - a similar line is also written under his pictures. As per the guidelines freely available content is permitted. Its difficult to re-write some bits as a lot of it is stats and facts which can't be re-worded. I have even spent time trying to re-word it and you keep reverting my changes and references everytime - another way you come across bias.

As per wikipedia's copyright guidelines: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes.

It looks like you are clinging on to anything you can think of to remove the article - thats why it led me to believe you have another agenda.

Under the notability guidelines I believe Oliver merits an article:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

I believe the article is notable due to the below:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. = INC, Business Insider, International Business Timees, Forbes (from reputable writers) etc

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. = INC, Business Insider, International Business Timees, Forbes (from reputable writers) etc --wikieditions (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding

Here is a list of all the sources I could find about Oliver

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/oliver-isaacs-tech-genius-investor-influencer-offers-his-thoughts-how-be-successful-tech-startup

Search for Oliver in this Scholarly Journal on page 8 : http://docdro.id/6g1mbTH

Quote = Overall, these leaders combine strong development experience with seasoned advisors who have generated significant accomplishments in the technology industry.

Oliver Isaacs, tech influencer and investor, expressed a similar sentiment, stating that the organization “has a very strong management team with serious credentials.”

Forbes authors are professionally vetted and, in most cases, may have credentials that allow the specific author to qualify under the self-published source criteria (established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but must never be used as third-party citations on statements relating to living persons).

e.g The author is very pronounced in the financial and cryptocurrency investing world:

Charles Bovaird, a financial writer and consultant, is the author of more than 200+ publications covering digital currencies, which appear in CoinDesk, Forbes and Bitcoin Market Journal. Mr. Bovaird has worked for financial institutions including State Street, Moody’s Analytics and Citizens Commercial Banking, and his work has appeared in publications including Forbes, Washington Post and Fortune. He has given speeches on financial literacy for Mensa and Boston Rotaract. The author is very pronounced in the financial and cryptocurrency investing world:

His work has appeared in publications including Forbes, Washington Post and Fortune. He has given speeches on financial literacy for Mensa and Boston Rotaract.

--wikieditions (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based off Isaacs' initial plagiarism scores, it is apparent that the article was made rapidly and haphazardly. After the pages most recent edit, his score has reduced significantly (15.3%).

Now, with the inclusion of reputable sources Isaacs has been mentioned in (Forbes, businessinsider.com, huffpost,observer), he is in compliance with the Wiki's general nobility guidelines. His own personal following, his association with high-profile personnel, and the amount of coverage give enough reason to warrant the validity of celebrity.

The new edit is also compliance with the biography of living persons stipulations.

Despite small transgressions, there should be no reason for admins to resort to speedy deletion. Everything from this point on can be edited and reworked, same as every other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gserrano0 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FORBES

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurencebradford/2017/08/28/7-things-young-entrepreneurs-can-do-now-to-succeed/#51a9a0420c54

INC

https://www.inc.com/john-white/top-uk-influencer-oliver-isaacs-reveals-what-it-ta.html

SOCIAL MEDIA WEEK

https://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2017/10/18-experts-reveal-top-instagram-growth-hacks/

THE NEXT WEB

https://thenextweb.com/guests/meet-oliver-isaacs-serial-entrepreneur-tech-investor-forbes-30-30-nominee/

BUSINESS INSIDER

http://uk.businessinsider.com/litecoin-price-fifth-largest-cryptocurrency-surges-past-80-per-coin-2017-9

JAPAN TODAY

https://japantoday.com/category/tech/meet-the-genius-behind-your-memes-and-viral-videos-oliver-isaacs-founder-of-amirite.com

FORBES

https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtissilver/2017/09/22/bearish-on-snap-oliver-isaacs-snap-sharp-decline/#35927df56c5c

HUFFINGTONPOST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-to-create-viral-content-interview-with-oliver_us_592887dee4b07d848fdc039a

BUZZFEED

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikepapa/how-to-create-viral-content-meet-oliver-isaacs-2zgj5?utm_term=.fdEK3rbDy#.bkljWgnzO

FORBES

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/03/30/what-digital-marketers-can-learn-from-viral-video-maker-julius-dein-and-his-1-billion-video-views/

EVAN CARMICHAEL

http://www.evancarmichael.com/library/crystal-simmons/How-to-Create-Viral-Content-10-Tips-from-Oliver-Isaacs-One-of-the-Fastest-Growing-Tech-Influencers-in-the-UK.html

INC

https://www.inc.com/melissa-thompson/3-big-lessons-small-retailers-can-learn-from-walma.html

OBSERVER

http://observer.com/2017/08/five-proven-ways-to-make-a-living-traveling-e-commerce-shutterstock-skills-freelancing/

FORBES

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cbovaird/2017/10/18/is-bitcoin-benefiting-from-the-ico-crackdown/#50690e19333a

~~Keep~~

~~After the pages most recent edit and clean up, copyright is very limited.~~

Now, with the inclusion of reputable sources Isaacs has been mentioned in (Forbes, businessinsider.com, huffpost,observer), he is in compliance with the Wiki's general nobility guidelines. His own personal following, his association with high-profile personnel, and the amount of coverage give enough reason to warrant the validity of celebrity.

~~The article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.175.54 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)~~ — 88.157.175.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep - The page does meet WP:GNG criteria as the content is cited with reliable sources i.e Inc.com, Business Insider, The Observer, Huffpost among others. The biography is notable enough, just needs cleanup and re-writing to fullfill WP:NPOV. 39.54.19.7 (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I have edited for WP:NPOV as I think there was a case to answer there, however the article fulfils WP:NOTE and WP:GNG through there being substantial write-ups beyond trivial mention in a number of high-class third-party sources, which I have added. My edits avoid the need for WP:TNT Richardaldinho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Sock edits above stricken. — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional puffery with the sources merely, as pointed out above, nothing special and quite routine. What tips this over the edge then is the concerted UPE effort to get this article kept as evidenced above and the need to enforce our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~for reasons cited by User:Berean Hunter, who is not a sock. His comments should not be struck.~~ Meets WP:GNG FWIW, I posted notice of this discussion at Article Rescue squad. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is me striking through UPE meats above. I have not registered a "keep" here. :) This is an effort being put forth to promote this article aubject. The SPI case is here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page has a lot of reliable sources, so that proves that the person is recognized and has some credibility. As a owner of a few companies I think he is notable for having a Wikipedia article. The article is nicely structured, almost entirely cleaned of copyrighted text and I think it deserves to stay on Wikipedia. --Semso98 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a TOU violation on a BLP subject matter. Notability doesn't even matter here, the content has no right to be on Wikipedia to even be assessed for notability, so I'm not going to play that game and argue against it or for it. I'll also go ahead and spell out why we typically delete UPE pieces of BLPs: UPE opens them up to blackmail and extortion (see both the Orangemoody article and LTA case). While this is not an OM claim, we almost always act in favour of deletion of BLPs in cases like this, and helping UPEs to further exploit a living person (as they probably did to !vote keep on this AfD) is contrary to simple human decency. There is no need to even assess this for any other factors. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vidooly

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

Small non-notable firm. The references here are almost all brief notices of funding, which is never enough to show notability; the others are essentially PR. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edited) Wasn't expecting this after the article was sent to the draft space, re-reviewed and re-admitted to the mainspace earlier by Paul 012. A bit frustrating on my part. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References provided in the aforementioned article does not establish notability of the firm.–Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was previously draftified due to COI concerns, but this wasn't properly noted in the edit summary. I wasn't aware of this when I reverted the draftification and moved it back to main space, but I didn't find any issues with COI nor notability anyway. IMO the coverage by Tech in Asia is more in-depth than purely routine coverage of business movements, though I don't know enough about the neutrality of the Indian sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012:--In case you missed it, all COI/PAID articles must be vetted through AFC.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godric on Leave, I'm aware, thanks. That's why I noted in an edit summary that I considered the move to be a manual review. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. At best reads like ad copy or history of funding. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Pseudo-notable company.Usual promotional sources.Is just a history of their fundings and acquirements.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:42, 8 November 2017 (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. ansh 666 05:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Teichholtz

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

Article appears to fail WP:BIO. Once all the personal life information is stripped away (including the various jobs he has filled over the years) there appears to be little to which to claim notability. A further quick search also reveals nothing particularly notable. Additionally the references, though plentiful, generally only mention Colin with the few focused on the individual failing to display any strong indications of notability. Finally the article appears to be practically an orphan (bar the one mention on a list of Harvard graduates) within Wikipedia with no unlinked mentions either. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Reuters source and Business Insider source are both in-depth from strong publishers. There is also a vast amount of other coverage in top RS sources, though not all are as truly in-depth. The individual ran billions in dollars in funds, definitely notable. Odd that the page was marked as reviewed just before this AFD came up, not from a reviewer, but an non-extended-confirmed account. Also, an article is not an orphan if it only has one wikilink--it is an orphan if it has none. Cook's Kitchen (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:: insufficiently notable for Wikipedia biography; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 03:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely both Reuters source and Business Insider source in-depth. Other sources are good as well. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the Reuters source is a routine announcement about the subject's departure from the fund: "Partner to leave hedge fund" and provides no biographical information. The Business Insider coverage is rather trivial and superficial, as in: "Despite his love of foreign countries, the only other country he's lived in besides the U.S. is Hong Kong, where he moved while at Goldman."link. This is insufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per K.e.coffman - Was of many managing that billionaire fund. Only mere mentions. Galobtter (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Business insider publishes primarily press releases, and the Reuters items are mere notices. Nothing else reliable. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 15 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Manager

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Cannot find any sources at all for this application. It might be vaporware. Rogermx (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Rogermx (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Could honest be A1ed as the name is so generic that can't find anything on it. Galobtter (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I agree this approaches WP:A1 territory; I'm not sure how the page has existed since 2009. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:A1, and tagged as such. While one could imagine something that looks like what the article describes, I do not think this is enough to defeat A1 - for instance, it is not clear (even after some online search) if any instance of such software exists. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:13, 13 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Attia

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

fails WP:GNG sources are mostly bios and passing mentions. Article created by a blocked sockpuppet Domdeparis (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find references that demonstrate WP:BIO is met, plus obviously written by experienced undisclosed paid editors who've almost certainly already been blocked. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Der Panther

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

Non-notable band, no coverage in RS anywhere I can find. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources. Normally with a band name that gives a lot of false positives I would combine it with the band's home town, names of band members, album titles, etc. In this case, with so little info, the only one of these that seemed likely to get any results was album titles, and this still drew a blank. --Michig (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG as there is absolutely no coverage of them in independent sources anywhere. Lots of POV statements, lots of peacock language, and strong suspicions that this article was written by someone close to the band – if nobody knows who the members are, then how do they know which cities they come from? Richard3120 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China's Four Most Handsome Men

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

None of the references mention this subject. This link just says "Pretty men in history", lists 5 men and doesn't mention Song Yu. Four Beauties is a well-known group in traditional Chinese culture, "four most handsome men" isn't, and I can't find any reputable reference grouping these 4 men together. (There's no zh.wiki article either.) PS: Page creator has been blocked for sock-puppetry. Timmyshin (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I note that on the Chinese wikipedia page for one of the four their is a redlink to a chinese page for this topic: zh:Special:链入页面/四大美男. So, while this page currently seems to fail WP:V, etc. I could be wrong. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That redlink was added earlier this year and also unreferenced. [4] Timmyshin (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH and sock creation. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2017 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Lawson

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

This biography (most likely an autobiography) is of a non-notable individual. Acting and musician roles are minor - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. The three references are a press release and two blog posts. Peacock (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page should NOT be deleted for several reasons. There are many reliable and 100% accurate websites and information online about Jordan Lawson’s career and work. I for one have done my research on this person and his work. He is a pretty well known actor and musician in the LA area from what I can see online and hear from others as well. Also, all the information about his work on this page is verifiable online and I also taken the time to make sure this is accurate and correct. The only reason ANYONE would want this page (which has been on Wikipedia for years) deleted, is because they must have some sort of beef or grudge they are holding against the Actor/Musician. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be taking all their time trying to have this page deleted. Just my opinion. This page belongs on Wikipedia, is correct and the person “Jordan Lawson” it is about is a popular enough individual to be on this website as well. Thanks and god bless!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6012:4D00:446A:D788:4B7:EE4 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — 2605:E000:6012:4D00:446A:D788:4B7:EE4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I tried erasing the “deletion” page for Jordan Lawson but this was unsuccessful at the time. Someone (most likely the person who originally made the deletion page) re-added it back on Jordan Lawson’s Page. I’ve read the comments and information about this page. Being someone who takes Wikipedia seriously, I cannot see any part of this actor and musician’s page that should be removed. All of the information on the page, as well as the individual’s known reputation verifies the accuracy of the page and leads me to believe this page should not be deleted. I agree with Roger Moore who also commented about this earlier. The person or persons who created this deletion page does not understand and/or know who the person actually is. This person is a public figure and I know who he is. Many other people that I have asked also know who Jordan Lawson is and agree with the Wikipedia page and information about him in it. Jordan Lawson is on many different websites and all of this on his page has been verified years ago. Probably before the Wikipedia page about him was even created. So it shouldn’t be deleted and is a valuable addition to this website for fans and anyone who enjoys Jordan’s work. I also am adding this last bit of info with my comment here as well. I realized that there are quite a few Wikipedia pages that mention Jordan Lawson and his work. For example, there are music pages, instrument pages, Acting pages, different city pages, schools, etc that all list him because he is notable enough to be and the 20-25 pages I’ve seen so far all seem to agree about his reputation, work, popularity, etc. That is all. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B116:E50A:D437:E2EE:8A3E:9123 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — 2600:1:B116:E50A:D437:E2EE:8A3E:9123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Long-winded speeches aside (both seemingly posted by the same user under different IPs, no less), the subject is completely non-notable as both a musician and an actor. There's no getting around the fact that the article was basically created as a promotional piece. Only sources cited were PR interviews that do not comply with Wikipedia's citation guidelines. Lastly, you cannot erase a deletion template under any circumstance until the issue has been resolved. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The person or persons who have taken the time to put this page up for deletion continue to attempt to erase parts of this page that have been verified and posted to the page long ago. Information about this person and the page will continue to be updated and verifiable info will continue to be added until the issue has been resolved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6012:4D00:78F1:F70:74A9:AA6E (talk) November 13, 2017 — 2605:E000:6012:4D00:78F1:F70:74A9:AA6E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Insufficient independent reliable sources to establish that the subject meets any notability guidelines. TimBuck2 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete More information had been added to this page previously and someone erased and/or attempted to undo changes tat had been made. This individual has reliable sources and credible work that has been listed on the page. Films, Television and stage performances, as well as several musical acts that are popular and have gained notoriety in the past. All of which was added to page months ago. Will re add again and I will add more sources that had been deleted previously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6012:4d00:8924:76cf:257e:8687 (talk) November 13, 2017 — 2605:e000:6012:4d00:8924:76cf:257e:8687 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note A group of unregistered users, including 2605:E000:6012:4D00:78F1:F70:74A9:AA6E, are currently collaborating on a draft for an all-male band called Rocket, of which Jordan Lawson is a member. I say "all male" because an article (since deleted) on an all-female band named Rocket had been hijacked and rewritten about the male band under the same article title, mainly by anon accounts. It was reverted to the original version on November 7, and the next day the draft was created. The male band has never had a Wikipedia article due to lack of notability. Given the fervor of those herein opposing the deletion of Jordan Lawson (only anons so far), coupled with the similar promotional-sounding and poorly-sourced tone of the draft plus the timing of its creation and the edit histories of its creators, they are more than likely connected with — or actually are — the band and/or Lawson, and are openly attempting to promote both subjects on Wikipedia. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved immensely since the nomination and relist, so the concerns about WP:PLOT no longer hold true. ansh 666 06:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 Years Later

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

Entirely plot; attempted to redirect by standard method, but was reverted. No expansion has been given on the article since it was created and tagged. -- Alex^TW 05:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The fact that the article is "entirely plot" and has long had an {{all plot}} tag is hardly a reason for deletion. Hell, {{all plot}} isn't even a content tag – it's a style tag!

WP:ASSESS defines a start-class article as:

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources. The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as BLP. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. [emphasis added]

Based on the standard that appears to be implied by this nomination, all stub-class articles and most start-class articles that have not been expanded in a few years should be deleted. To use such a standard would certainly be at odds with a community-wide consensus (as is reflected in guidelines such as WP:STUB). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas - The article has an excessively long plot section. The plot should be no longer than 500 words but it's around 1,000. It is weak in every area except the infobox and even that needs expansion. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The episode received enough secondary coverage as the pilot of the revival season, and the article is appropriately tagged to encourage expansion. Articles don't need to be perfect to exist. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged over a month ago and no such expansion has occurred. I see no proof in the article of enough "secondary coverage". -- Alex^TW 15:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the article hasn't been expanded in the last month doesn't mean it won't be next month. The fact that tags have not been addressed is not a reason to delete the article, sorry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, it would be valid for deletion next month, then? And what does the article provide that no other article hasn't yet? I see a plot and one review, easily listable on the season article. -- Alex^TW 01:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It provides the possibility for an article that will be promoted from start class. What you're describing is very much in line with a start-class article. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is the concern, why was that not raised in the nomination? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:PLOT. Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works, which this article quite clearly is. Such articles are regularly deleted at AfD or redirected. For example, check Category:The West Wing redirected episode articles. All of those used to be articles, demonstrating that the Wikipedidia community supports WP:PLOT and endorses the deletion of articles like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right -- Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works. But that is not a reason for deleting an article about a notable episode just because it has not yet been fully expanded. This article just needs to be expanded not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as being almost all plot a month ago,[5] yet no attempt to reduce the size of the plot or otherwise expand the the article was made until after Alex redirected it. Experience has shown that the longer an article sits in an unnaceptable state, the less chance there is that it will be fixed. People say articles can be fixed, but they never are. That's what happened to those 129 The West Wing episodes. An alternative to deletion is to move the article to draft space, which Alex suggested in this edit summary, but it never was. That's probably the best option at this point. The unimproved draft will probably be deleted in a few months but at least there is a bit of hope there. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't delete articles just because they are subpar. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not just sub-par, it consists almost entirely of a plot and WP:PLOT, which is policy, says such articles shouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we're just going to ignore secondary coverage or critical reception and just focus on the plot tag, then I give up. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary coverage doesn't seem to cover much. Since the AfD tag was added, references added to the article are pretty trivial. Four were added to support the claim that the episode is the first episode of the ninth season, something that really didn't need references. Another two were added to support a claim regarding viewers, which are already mentioned in the episode list article. The entire "Ratings and reception" is sadly lacking. At best this article is a draft. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep favoring redirect I'm not convinced that this article has the potential to be improved within a reasonable timeframe. While I believe that it is certainly possible to establish notability for the subject, no editor has so far taken it upon themselves to improve the article. As it stands, the plot section dominates the article, the reception section is literally bare bones, and nothing is mentioned of the episode's development and production. --haha169 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"While I believe that it is certainly possible to establish notability for the subject" -- ~~thanks for voting to keep the article, then~~ this is an argument for keeping the article. Again, we don't delete articles about notable topics just because "no editor has so far taken it upon themselves to improve the article". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did not vote to keep it, do not twist other editor's words to suit your own agenda. That is unacceptable and will make your position here even less acceptable than it currently is. And given the evidence given by the other editor's here, we certainly do delete unimproved articles - it is actually a common practice. -- Alex^TW 15:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. I struck out my comment and noted the editor's admission that the topic is notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an interest in this article and its subject, so why don't you start drafting something in your sandbox or the draft space instead of arguing at AfD? Even if it ends up deleted or redirected, if you can present a solid article at any time in the future, no one will object re-creating this article. But as it stands now, this article has not established notability, and potentially notable is not acceptable for an article to remain in the mainspace. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alex, Aussie and haha. If there is notability to the episode as Another Believer feels, then I say make this article a redirect, and start crafting the article in the draft space. An all plot article should not be sitting around waiting to be expanded, because as Aussie said, Experience has shown that the longer an article sits in an unnaceptable state, the less chance there is that it will be fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, redirecting makes more sense than deleting, since the redirect would still serve a purpose by directing readers to the season article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except you reverted me when I redirected the article, which prompted this AFD. -- Alex^TW 23:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: Right, because I think the subject of the article is notable. I'm not advocating for redirecting, I'm just agreeing that redirecting is more appropriate than actually deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then create the article in the draft space and prove that it is notable. And I did redirect it, but you forced my hand to nominate it for deletion. If you believed it more appropriate, you would have gone for that option, created a valid article, then moved it back to the main space. -- Alex^TW 02:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Better to start a draft where production info and a proper reception section can be worked on. - Brojam (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 95% of the article is a summary of a creative work. The creative work's existence is cited four times, it's viewership twice, and two magazines' opinions are cited once each. 321 bytes of reliably-cited prose does not a notable article make. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to reviewing/closing admin: Just for the record, and then I'll move on because I'm not going to fight hard for a television episode, editors are not using one of these reasons for deleting an article to support their comments. In fact, one even said the subject is notable. Just because an article has issues or tags does not mean it should be deleted. Somewhat ironically, the IP editor commenting throughout this discussion is the one making the most sense. Thanks, and happy editing, all! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of the reasons listed at WP:DEL#REASON, I see contributors referencing reasons 8 and 14. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. No one has flat out said the article's subject is not notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it could be notable. It just isn't in its current state. That's why you're being suggested to create the article in the draft space. -- Alex^TW 23:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that editors haven't used Wikipedia:Deletion policy is disingenuous. Editors have addressed the notability problems; I specifically addressed the problem with the way that references have been used to support trivial points. Alternatives to deletion, specifically WP:ATD-R and WP:ATD-I have also been addressed. On the keep side, all we've seen is WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is an argument to avoid. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now the article is not just made of a plot summary. I just wrote a bigger reception section :) Lady Junky (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger reception article does not an article make. The extended plot summary still almost solely comprises the whole article, and any reception could be included in the season article. Look for other episode articles for example - there needs to be production information, real-world content, cast, release information, etc. -- Alex^TW 00:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not like these pages, do you? ^^' We have so many episode articles with less than that, and no one seems to have a problem with it ^^ I really don't see what's the problem here. Lady Junky (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link these articles for me and I'll nominate them for you! What can I say except you're welcome? -- Alex^TW 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there appears to be plenty of third-party, reliable sources discussing this episode in particular. I am not sure about the discussion of the current state of the article or whether or not users have improved it in a timely manner. The discussion should focus on whether or not this has received enough independent coverage to support notability, and I believe that it has (I can see quite a bit of coverage after looking through just Google News). Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have changed and added stuff to the article since the beginning of this discussion ^^ Lady Junky (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--so improve it. obviously a notable episode. BTW I am all in favor of deleting almost every individual episode of every TV show, but this one made waves. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the draftspace is for. -- Alex^TW 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second Alex. The onus is on the editor(s) who wish to keep the article to improve it to satisfy notability requirements. As of yet, the article still gives undue weight to the plot section and lacks any discussion of the production side of things (conception, development, casting, and release) that is necessary for any TV episode article. The reception section has been improved significantly, but it still lacks any sort of general synthesis (such as, "many critics lauded the episode for xxx") and is merely a list of quotations. Of course, an article doesn't need to be fully complete to avoid deletion, but I am not satisfied the current state is enough. I agree it needs to be improved, but the onus is on those of you who wish to keep it to do so. --haha169 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should focus entirely on notability. I respectfully disagree with the following statement: "I agree it needs to be improved, but the onus is on those of you who wish to keep it to do so.". The idea of improving the article is a separate issue that I do not feel is directly relevant in an AfD context. When looking through the WP:GNG (General notability guideline), it is all about proving this idea "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". I have always seen notability/significant coverage as the primary argument to whether an article or a list should be kept/merged/redirected/deleted. So I would pivot your statement to say that the onus for support voters should be in pointing out sources that prove this idea of "significant coverage". As someone who does articles on topics related to television series, this is not how I personally go about things. I do personally it differently than whoever created this particular article (I always build up the article to a certain point in my sandbox before moving things over to the main page) so I can understand the sentiments felt by the delete votes and the votes to move this into a draft space. My only concern is that is more dealing with personal preference rather than directly going back to Wikipedia policy. I am not personally tied to this particular subject matter, but I just wanted to fully explain my vote in the context of this ongoing conversation, and I will leave it up to future reviewers and the closer to figure it out either way. Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make some excellent points and after reading your arguments I am inclined to switch my position on this issue. The article is in a much different state than when I originally cast my vote. I still personally believe this article needs to be moved to draftspace for very significant improvements, but I'll withdraw my delete vote because I think this article does at the very least meet WP:GNG. --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I think that it is important to have an open discussion while still respecting and understanding one another's opinions. The article has improved since it was put up for the AfD. I agree that more improvements can and should be made in the future, and I would highly encourage whoever made this article to pause and do some work in a draft space when making a new article to adequately avoid notability concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to Will & Grace (season 9). Zero secondary source material, WP:NOTPLOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Zero secondary source material" claim is inaccurate as there are secondary sources in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2017 (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. Please properly source this WP:BLP. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maolidy

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

Unable to verify the info for this page. The external link provided is for a different individual and with only a single name provided a search is not possible. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly easy to verify this person, and passes WP:NPOL as a member of a national parliament. I have corrected the link. Greenman (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be verified as existing and as a member of a national legislature, therefor meeting WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2017 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Tadatomo

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

Since 2006, this article has existed without any reference. A PROD was reverted by an editor who asserted that there must be a Japanese language reference, but did not provide one. I understand WP:NODEADLINE. This is looking like NEVER. Fails WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

potential merge to Battle of Tennōji given that most GBook hits are to single page mentions of his part in the battle. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The following source nearly everything in the stub - [6] [7][8] [9][10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. He also played a role in the Siege of Osaka as well as contact with Europeans - Rodrigo de Vivero, 1st Count of Valle de Orizaba. Japanese sources are surely more in depth than this brief search (the Japanese wiki version certainly is longer and with some sources - [16]).Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Tennōji or Honda Tadakatsu; otherwise, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:V, NPOV, and NOR per Icewhiz and ja:本多忠朝. I'm not sure how large a 100,000 koku fief is - it seems likely that these numbers were embellished and his fief couldn't really pay a tax of enough rice to feed 100,000 people for a year - but looking at the relative sizes, such a fief seems to equate to an important political figure, suggesting he passes WP:NPOL. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have already added a Japanese reference to the article from Kotobank, the reference book aggregation site run by the Asahi Shinbun, one of Japan's largest newspapers. There are also a good number of other Japanese references online, such as [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc., though since this is medieval history, not everything is online. The Japanese wiki article seems well-referenced, particularly citing Chiba history books. Michitaro (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag as a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious keep given the importance of this historical figure in Japan. Deleting this would be a travesty similar to people on jp.wiki agreeing to delete someone relevant like Ulysses S. Grant because they can't read US history books. (I would find a better comparison, but the US hadn’t been invented during this time period so I compromised, a better comparison would probably be a European general of that period. my point is that we should be reasonably lenient to figures from other cultures which we have limited knowledge of.) Additionally, historical figures are almost always considered notable if there are at least some sources mentioning them, which is now the case. Dysklyver 10:46, 11 November 2017 (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. No consensus on recreating this on Wiktionary. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Member of technical staff

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

Not finding significant coverage of this term itself, just mentions of people who are such staff members and passing mentions, such as in this source. Does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially a neologism or definition of a title. No substance, no real sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary a redirect to Bell Labs isn't quite appropriate, as the term has expanded from its initial use there . The article is a dictdef of a job title, and will almost certainly stay as one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic law in Constantinople

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

WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY article on a dubious topic: the author somehow conflates Byzantine history between 1204 and 1453 and the Ottoman era, the Byzantine society with Shari'a law and Mehmed II's treatment of the patriarchate, etc. The topic of the article is rather unclear, and its structure doesn't make clear what arguments the author advances. Constantine ✍ 12:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It hardly has anything to do with the topic described in the page name, and as was pointed out on its talk page when created it reads like an essay, and one with the distorted frame of reference pointed out by the nom. The majority of the article isn't even about shari'a, but rather is about pre-conquestt Byzantine bureaucracy, while the final section on actual post-conquest shari'a (supposedly the topic) seems almost an afterthought, with generalities about shari'a that seem to represent synthesis and parts reading like personal opinion/essay, a tone that has been in the article from the start. While there may be a place on Wikipedia to discuss the implementation of Islamic law on the newly-conquered citizenry of Constantinople, this isn't it, and misses the mark to such a degree that it appears to be a case for WP:TNT. Agricolae (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Agricolae. An article with this title could be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This content could possibly be useful at an article with a different title. I'd support some more complicated solution (such as WP:HEY or draftify if someone wanted to take on the project) if someone were willing to enact it, but as it is, this is not encyclopedic content under this title and it has been tagged long enough that no fix is likely. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify content is important and subject is also notable. But right now it reads like an essay. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete possibly userify to give the creator an opportunity to resolve its issues. The article is trying to deal with two separate subjects. (1) Byzantium was a weak state between 1204 and 1453. There is an opportunity to explain to what extent (if any) there were Muslims (e.g. merchants) in Constantinople before 1453 and to what extent they were allowed to live under their own laws. (2) the Islamisation of the city after 1453 is a separate topic: the question is then the extent to which Christians were permitted to live under their own laws and (perhaps) to what extent Roman law still applied in commerce. Each of these might be capable of making a worthwhile article, perhaps with an intervening section on how Sharia law was applied in and just after 1453. The present article just will not do. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2017 (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. There are valid concerns about the level of sourcing, but enough think that it's enough to pass WP:GNG to prevent deletion. Note that promotional concerns can be fixed through editing instead of deletion. ansh 666 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shake's Frozen Custard

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

This article has had no independent reliable citations since 2006, when a SPA wrote the article. A PROD was reverted in 2015, with no improvement to the article, but a claim that references supporting GNG exist. Once an article is challenged, it is up to the proponent to demonstrate that the article meets the requirement. Why should a single-location ice cream stand merit an article in an encyclopedia without references, besides WP:ILIKEIT? Rhadow (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a role account as endorsed by Sheffield.gov.uk --KalamazooGuy (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This new account KalamazooGuy (talk · contribs) made several edits to many AfDs and is currently blocked — Ammarpad (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:KalamazooGuy has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable business. The original of this article could just as well have been speedied, and while it's toned down now, I still don't see evidence of it being a suitable topic. DMacks (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete didn't satisfy any criterion of WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources the editor is just removing the prod for the sake of it but completely unable to demonstrate it indeed deserve an article. — Ammarpad (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom should review WP:BEFORE: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." The existence of sources to satisfy GNG was pointed out on the talk page, so why are we here? New links since those links have died: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Toohool (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope the closing Admin will consider something here critically. The above comment by Toohool is both deceptive and half-clever gaming of the system. In the surface, one will see 6 different websites (sources) but in reality they're one inaccessible website replicated six times. This can be verified by anybody either via opening them in six windows (like I did) or analyzing them through source code. I don't know why he think this trick can work at AfD. And this only further shows the article is unsourced and failed all criteria for inclusion in encyclopedia. When it was prodded in 2015 Toohool deprodded it and posted the same website: "info web.news bank.com" on the talkpage. He replicated the website 6 times also. Now he just copied them from the talkpage. I write this whith much constraint, but the trick is really unbecoming. — Ammarpad (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I just tried the links in 3 different browsers and they all work. Those are links to 6 different news articles at NewsBank. NewsBank is a site that archives stories from many newspapers and other reliable sources. If they're not working for you for some reason, you can also probably access NewsBank through your local library and do the search yourself. Also, consider AGF before you go slinging accusations at people. Toohool (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toohool: I am sorry if you think I didn't assume good faith on you. But before I wrote that I had gone to the first revision of the page all through. I tried each link at least two times and confirmed they lead to the same website. I, today after The Bushranger's post on my talkpage, asked two different people and they all confirm that it is the same website. Now the argument of of "Archive website" is a different thing, as I didn't say it is not archiving website, and it didn't allow unregistered people to see that, neither does it allow registration, which I could've done. I don't question your source because it is reg-only, or something like that, but sincerely since the page archive newspapers why don't sources the papers directly? These papers sources has been on the talkpage since 2015 (and the article unsourced since 2006) you've access to the site why should you leave it that way and say the source is in talkpage? If you have improved the article more than you depend its keeping, I don't think it can even come in this place now, but the only source you posted at talk are not accessible to willing editors, If I want now reference the article how can I do that with source I can't access and the article remained since 2006 with single self source. Now if this discussion is closed as kept, and you post these link at the talkpage again like you did here 2 years ago, please is that the way the article will continue existing? Do you think this is the right thing to do in the sprit of building Wikipedia? I am more of inclusionist on Wikipedia, as I believe many deleted pages could be useful, but I have searched for source on this article is no evidence this meat any of the points highlighted at WP:GNG and I still believe it should be deleted because Verifiability (in this case very little, not asserted since 2006) is not guarantee for inclusion on Wikipedia. It really exists and have website, but that's also invalid criterion for inclusion — Ammarpad (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had tried the first talkpage link both from a site that appears to have Newsbank access and one that connects via a proxy (and through that appears to have access). In both case, I got: "Log in for complete access to this resource. There was an issue while searching for the article you requested... please contact customer service." Without at actual cites to the actual newspapers or exactly what search to do myself (note, "I found lots of search hits" itself isn't a WP:RS or WP:GNG claim), I can't figure out there to go further at that site, so I have no basis to change my !vote. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the new links here in the AfD seem to work. Checking... DMacks (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's barely enough here to pass, but there's enough. Newsbank is, as noted, a newspaper-article-archiving service; just like Archive.org and Newspapers.com, it is not "just one site multiple times". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--The links are to different news-pieces by diff. authors, published on diff. mediums Newsbank is an archive of diff. news-pieces and obviously the domain-name will be same. but they don't satify GNG.Typical corp-promo news.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Based on the sources provided by Toohool. Although I would love to see someone improve the page by adding the references in and cleaning up the content. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few more sources found on Newspapers.com: [30] [31] [32] [33] Toohool (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article reads like an advertisement, and WP:PROMOTION could well apply to this article. Vorbee (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG, although on a weaker level. I have copy edited the article to address concerns with promo tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 6 references cited above are every single one of them promotional stories in local newspapers--such accounts are indiscriminate coverage,any not truly independent. There's nothing else substantial . DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 14 November 2017 (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 Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs. I'm not an expert on the various R from templates. If somebody wants to add R from misnomer, that's fine with me. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gwalior Metropolitan Region

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

Doesn't exist (other than every town has a notional commuter belt). The 2011 census lists Gwalior Urban Region which is just Gwalior+Morar. Most of this article is copied from Gwalior. Batternut (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment there is no development authority for this region as other metros have (eg Kolkata, Mumbai), and no official stats for this area. See also Template:Gwalior Metropolitan Region. Batternut (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It was pointed out to me that a copyvio-within-Wikipedia is not a G12 speedy candidate. My apologies are extended and I'm relisting this to restart the discussion. Note to future admins: This is NOT one of the 'two relistings' that are usually considered proper for a not-yet-consensused discussion, but a procedural one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinions here, but the name "metropolitan region" doesn't appear to be a misnomer, it's for example here alongside "urban agglomeration". I don't know if this generally merits a standalone article (likely at a different title), but with the present state of the article and the large duplication with Gwalior, I think it's best to redirect it to Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs. – Uanfala 11:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "metropolitan region" link above - although census2011.co.in mentions "metropolitan region" the census itself only counted and spoke of urban agglomerations (UAs), eg see the Gwalior district census handbook. Googling finds no gov.in mention of either "Gwalior Metropolitan region" or "Gwalior Metropolitan area". Batternut (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments Content fork applies, re duplication between it and Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs. The only reliable information specific to the metro area is the population (fictitious in the metro article, correct in Gwalior). Batternut (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think about redirecting to Gwalior then? I think this is fairly straightforward, and the only question is whether the redirect should be marked up as {{R from misnomer}} or not. – Uanfala 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'd support (as proposer) a redirect Gwalior. I don't think I'd bother about tagging as a misnomer (but might be persuaded). Batternut (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs as per above. No opinion on the redirect template tags. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gwalior#Gwalior Metro and suburbs sounds reasonable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 14 November 2017 (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. Given the sources present and found, there isn't the chance of a hailstone in Hades of this being deleted. Therefore, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'm going ahead and closing this. Please remember to add those sources to the article. Rassin' frassin' kids these days with their esports, why in MY day- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 League of Legends World Championship

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

Two drafts of this article was created and twice failed WP:GNG. The conditions are not improved. ibicdlcod (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand. You are a significant contributor to the article. Why are you nominating it for deletion?
Here are some articles: Kotaku, PCGamer, GameSpot, IGN, and the list goes on. Here are some more. This seems an obvious keep. Maplestrip, you might be interested in cleaning this one. --Izno (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me. League of Legends isn't a scene I usually write articles for, but this does look like an obvious keep. ~Mable (chat) 13:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of confused about the nom, but I 100% say keep User:Zorbo678 (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously meets GNG. The previous year's article (2016 League of Legends World Championship), which I contributed a lot of content to, is a GA, and this year's event is no less prominent. In fact, it probably has more coverage because its additional play in stage, and from Chinese news sources, since it was hosted there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly meets GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, speedy keep, plenty of reliable sources to be found. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:36, 8 November 2017 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AltNews.in

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

Should be fully rewritten, as the majority of the article is a problem for NPOV. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was in fairly bad shape, but pruning it down to a fairly neutral stub was not difficult: I have now done so. The coverage is fairly substantive, even just in the sources already in the article. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the General Notability guideline and WP:WEB guideline the website was founded on 9 February 2017 and is still at the beginning stage.The newspaper articles do not give substantial coverage of the website .Only Just briefly dwell upon the website About 8 news stories of the website are mentioned but nothing about the website and it does not meet CORP guild line.122.164.253.141 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has zero edits outside this discussion

Keep BBC is a reliable source as well as The Telegraph. Times of India is main RS for any article that is related to India.--Biografer (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an article fails WP:NPOV, it should be rewritten or edited, not completely deleted. Pointing out flaws in a national government and having that get international coverage is WP:NOTABLE. Furthermore, this Altnews.in website was literally featured in a GQ article a week ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalthebest (talk • contribs)
The website is not notable. BBC and Telegraph(Calcutta) comments about the India ministry mocked for 'appropriating' Spain border and "Border lights illuminate a Moroccan mockery" NOT ABOUT AltNews.in.IT HAS WRITTEN ONLY 40 ARTICLES SINCE 9 FEB 2017 and Exposés by Altnews have occasionally received coverage in the mainstream media Occasional coverage does not pass WP:GNG and WP:WEB and all coverage is about the story not about the website. It does not get advertisement it is an amateur website. It is just over 6 MONTH OLD WEBSITE 122.174.141.71 (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same above IP

- We don't look at how old the site is, we look at its notability. If it have substantial coverage, we accept it. That's how Wikipedia works. And putting everything bold or in caps wont get you far in this discussion, since it looks like like you are yelling at your fellow Wikipedians.--Biografer (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course we look at it's notability. That's what the user of the IP is saying, that it's not notable. I no longer think it should be deleted. The sources that mention it do so as to look at the website's uniqueness in it's way of writing, which is essentially showcasing people believing fake news and other related articles. They do only have 60 thousand Facebook followers, but they have articles mentioning them from the Times of India, the BBC, and HuffPost. It should have a page, but the page should be rewritten entirely to make it seem like it's more like a news outlet and less like a group crusading against the evil fake news, which is what it sounds like now. _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The IP is actually saying both things: 1. Its not notable and 2. Its only six months old (in caps). The second of which, would be better if he hadn't mentioned it, since it caused confusion (on my part at least). As for 60,000 Facebook followers: That is not how we establish notability. but they have articles mentioning them from the Times of India, the BBC, and HuffPost. - That is exactly what notability is. BBC, The Times of India, CNN, The New York Times, all of them are good sources. I would be careful with HuffPost since its mostly daily newspaper which might contain some gossips, so use it sparingly. :)--Biografer (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Adotchar, have you read the new version of the page? It's substantially different from the one you nominated for deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears to have significant coverage. Deleting the article won't solve its neutrality issues, editing the article and working with other users will.VR _talk 11:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for contradictory nomination statement and below reason. The nominator want the article to be rewritten not deleted. He can easily do this or tag it for someone to do. AfD is for article to be deleted not ask for rewriting. Second, this article fairly meet the points of WP:NWEB by being directly subject of discussion in nworld renown media organization like BBC, The Telegraph and Times of India A careful WP:BEFORE whould've prevented this misnomination, almost all (if not all) the sources used are reputable and notable sources and they are not only mentioning the article merely as I have gone through entire contents 6 of them and skimmed the rest. This is very rare combination of source you can find in any AfD. To the nominator, nextime if want article to be rewritten please just tag it with copyedit, AfD is meant only for deletion not 'rewriting' discussion — Ammarpad (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally nominated it to be deleted. After a few days, I no longer thought it should be, though it was already nominated and the discussion had started. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Adotchar: that means you no longer want go ahead with deletion discussion? — Ammarpad (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would have closed it, but AFD guidelines say that you only can if everyone says keep, and you're the nominator. Everyone except the IP thinks the page should be kept. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's clear consensus according to policies and guidelines and you withdraw the nomination since. One IP who never edit outside this AfD and have no strong rationale cannot overturn this consensus. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons provided by User:Biografer and above by User:Ammarpad. The current version since correction by User:Vanamonde93 seems vertical with WP guidelines.Jionakeli (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2017 (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DC Solar

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

Promotionally written article with claim for notability through WP:INHERITORG as NASCAR sponsor. However, little by way of independent media coverage about the company as such, therefore failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. Internet searches bring up results relating to Nascar sponsorship and items reading like press-released/details from press packs. The article also contains unsourced information and details from a completely unrelated company, which I will remove. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly promotional article, no evidence of it passing WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2017 (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 G5 delete. Speedied. m.o.p 16:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanSocial

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

An advertisement, made by a promotional disruptive sock,[34] who belongs to a sockfarm of over 1000 socks. Article lacks notability and has been proded by Power~enwiki for being too promotional. Capitals00 (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the best it can be do is be recommended by The Sun then that's not saying much. The technique of creating a redirect, waiting for it to pass by the early NPPers, and then expanding it, sounds like the sort of underhand tactics a sockfarm would resort to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 7 November 2017 (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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Richards (director)

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

This has been tagged as being unsourced for over two years: it remains a résumé with a list of films which his company made, all but two of which lack their own Wikipedia pages ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He has a reasonably substantial track record as a director of notable works. Online sources that discuss him directly include [35] (Wales on Sunday, 2001, calling him "one of our hottest talents"); [36] (South Wales Echo, 2009, with some discussion of his efforts in the underfed Welsh film industry); and smaller mentions at sources like [37][38][39]. Not the strongest set of sources but I think enough to let the article survive. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus a 2008 nomination for BAFTA's Cymru Award, which is Wales' highest film honour, I'd say he's notable, when we combine the coverage we can find and the more significant awards/noms listed at IMDb. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2017 (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. Very little discussion, so best to treat this similar to a WP:PROD. Sandstein 12:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertrophy-specific training

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

fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, maybe I find references to this, but it's not clear how much of this is just the men's self-improvement echo chamber. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 7 November 2017 (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. Not much discussion, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Love Records

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

The only sources are self-published. A Google search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Narky Blert (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, also the notability of the artists on the label is questionable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: One or two of the bluelinked artists on the label look at first sight as if they might pass WP:GNG. If their notability is in doubt, they need individual discussion, and they should not be drawn into this discussion. Of course, neither artists nor label can WP:INHERIT notability from each other (I have WP:WG in mind). Narky Blert (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: I wasn't suggesting that they be discussed here, and I pretty much agree with you on that point. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 7 November 2017 (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. ansh 666 06:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winters Brothers

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

The article does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. This appears to me to be an unremarkable waste and recycling company. Notability hinges on the four articles in Newstimes, which in my assessment mostly feature the company talking about itself and appear to be the work of a PR company and would fail WP:ORGIND. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, I agree. The notability hinges on the Newstimes articles but they don't meet the criteria for establishing notability. References fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recently expanded on the article to discuss the significant railroad operations in the Connecticut and New York regions. This article describes a notable company in the Connecticut and Long Island regions, being the largest waste management company in these markets. For example, all of Waste Management's operations in Connecticut and New York (excluding NYC) are contracted through Winters Brothers. I disagree that the references cited fail Wikipedia's credibility standards, as the news articles were created by independent news sources and all company profiles and information about the company listed on Wikipedia are from third-party sources. There are several links to other pages on Wikipedia, including TWO railroad lines that the company operates with under contract. This article is also not a stub, and provides plenty of information as to the history of the company, and how it holds some of the largest waste management assets in the Northeast Untied States. I would not have taken the time to write this article if I did not feel this company had a significant economic impact on this region of the country, where most waste services are privatized. These are the reasons why I find this article to be significant, and I hope you take the time to review the recent changes I have made and hopefully reconsider. Rather than campaigning to delete these articles of mid-sized companies in the Northeast US, please help me to expand upon them. Thank you.--AirportExpert (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
- Comment The test for references to meet the criteria for establishing notability is not solely whether an article was created by an independent news source but the article must also be "intellectually" independent. Similarly, for the purposes of establishing notability, content published by third party sources must also be intellectually independent. Therefore references that rely almost exclusively on content prepared and/or published by the company or their officers is not considered intellectually independent and therefore these references do not assist in establishing the notability of this company. Of the references provided, none meet the criteria and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
  - This newstimes article relies exclusively on an interview with Mr. Winters, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
  - This newstime article from June 2011 also relies exclusively on information provided by the company, their employees and Mr. Winters, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
  - The bloomberg profile is provided by the company, as are all profiles published by Bloomberg. It is not intellectually independent. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a run-of-the-mill company description and fails WP:ORGIND as it is provided by the company.
  - This newstime article from March 2011 is largely based on a company announcement and quotations and/or an interview with company officers, is not intellectually independent and contains no independent analysis or opinion, fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This newstime article from July 2011 is largely based on a news conference held by Mr. Winters, contains no independent analysis or opinion, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
  - This winterbros reference and this one are PRIMARY sources and fail the criteria for independence for the purposes of establishing notability.
  - This libn.com article on "trash trains" relies on quotations from Will Flower, a company officer, for information on Winters Bros and is therefore not intellectually independent and does not contain independent opinion or analysis in relation to Winters Bros, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
  - The reference from thereflectedpast.com and the hrrc.com reference make no mention of the Winter Bros.
  - This prnewswire reference is a company announcement, is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  - this waste360.com reference is based on a news release (as is stated at the end of the second paragraph) and is largely based on a company press release and fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This reference from pehub.com is based on a press release from an investor, is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- In my opinion and based on the points I've raised above, none of the provided references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references are intellectually independent and it is a small part of the overall test to check that the articles were published by organisations independent of the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still lacks any reliable independent references to establish notability, as detailed above.. Maproom (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In this case, I think the sources are in fact sufficient to show notability. and the importance of the company sufficient that this is what would be expected. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 15 November 2017 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Eschliman

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

De-prodded: other users have removed numerous circular references and promo. Fails WP:MUSICBIO due to lack of significant coverage (source search). He has worked with Grammy award winners but notability isn't inherited from that. DrStrauss talk 13:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought there might be enough in the artist's own website to fit one of the sub-headings within WP:NMUSIC, but I failed to find anything as a musician or composer to support retention as a notable artist, let alone any third party sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 7 November 2017 (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. New sources presented, but their reliability is questioned. No conclusive result, and given that it's been open so long, I doubt an extra relist would help. ansh 666 06:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style Battle

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

Delete PROD removed with no explanation. No indications of notability, written in a promotional tone, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No need to remove. It needs expansion, sure, but not deletion. Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. The WON source is fine, but the other two are from unreliable sources. One source is not significant coverage. Nikki♥311 01:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are right now two good sources in the article. WON and ProWrestling.net are reliable sources. Not sure if that is enough.★Trekker (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Add I've also found these [40], [41], [42] from PWInsider and these from PWTorch [43], [44], [45], [46], which are relibale.★Trekker (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Also those sources are not reliable imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well your opinion is rather irrelevant since it has already been agreed that these sources qualify as reliable, and considering that all you've ever done on the wrestling project seems to be trying to delete articles, (some of which were notable), I'd say you have a pretty obvious bias.★Trekker (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2017 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Two Years

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

Does not meet WP:NFP. Available sources are primary in nature or providing only passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this film's inclusion in this SLTribune's top-10 list of LDS cinema ~Awilley (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Coverage in the above-linked The Salt Lake Tribune article is not significant coverage at all; it consists of two short sentences. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large regional newspaper giving their top 10 list a specific regional genre. Here's a NYTimes article also discussing this genre that talks about this film and HaleStorm Entertainment (also nominated for deletion) specifically. ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvements. IE: Rotten Tomatoes has several critic reviews, and IMDB also offers links to multiple reviews. Christianity Today has a review as well, as does efilmcritic and more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:37, 11 November 2017 (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 as super-expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 20:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hyun-Soo (figure skater)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Her results: http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00102123.htm Hergilei (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 12:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 05:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 7 November 2017 (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 defaulting to keep. WP:NPASR ansh 666 05:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piyasiri Gunaratne

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

Single source found. No other coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 05:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just did a quick search and came across multiple reliable sources: http://www.sarasaviya.lk/2011/12/29/_art.asp?fn=sa11122922&pn=24 http://www.films.lk/sinhala-cinema-artist-piyasiri-gunarathna-1427.html https://www.fdb.cz/lidi/620101-piyasiri-gunaratna.html BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another: https://www.novinky.cz/kultura/salon/320881-piyasiri-gunaratna-srilanske-tydny-proti-mediim.html BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/1131721572-babylon/415236100152009/ http://moby.org.il/en/catalog/unite/ BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 7 November 2017 (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 Currency bill tracking. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Money Tracker

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

This article appears to contain no independent sources, and a quick Google search does not seem to reveal much more third-party coverage (although it is referenced on the Where's George? website, which is arguably a much more notable project than The Money Tracker). Therefore, I believe that this article fails WP:GNG. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 20:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As a stand alone subject there does not appear to be anywhere near sufficient NEXIST to demonstrate notability. But as part of a series of articles on this is might have reason to stay. Perhaps redirect and merge more to Currency bill tracking while this is still TOOSOON? Aoziwe (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 05:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Currency bill tracking. Weak article as a stand alone subject, but a couple of sentences could be merged into the wider Currency bill tracking article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Kind Tennis Fan. Galobtter (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Addendum: shouldn't be more than two sentences or so though, as I can barely see any coverage on it. Galobtter (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2017 (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 The Work and the Glory (film). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Work and the Glory: American Zion (film)

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:NFP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was unable to find any reliable sources for this article. No sign of notability in the future. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to The Work and the Glory (film), the film that this was a sequel to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested makes sense as the way to deal with it

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 Deseret Book. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Entertainment Group

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Many sources available in searches are only providing passing mentions, or are primary sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP guidelines. No inherit notability based on researching the subject.Comatmebro (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deseret Book. We should keep information on a subsidiary of a larger company even if there is not lots of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Deseret Book. There was already a merge proposal with no objections (see Talk:Deseret Book#Merge Excel Entertainment Group to this article with no objections, so that is ready to do. The Book company page can incorporate any referenced material from the group page. Klbrain (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candis Cox

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

Already tagged for notability, there appears to be on superficial coverage and not necessarily enough to meet GNG or make her notable Gbawden (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a personal bio, with a good amount of promotional material/puffery, and nothing that suggests GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local level activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2017 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Badal-McCreath

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

not actually notable by WPPROF, and the refs are local publicity only DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue that the Elsevier Foundation Award meets Criteria 2 in WPPROF. Also, the Jamaica Observer is a national, not local. Lirazelf (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also coverage in US. News – so an independant reliable source to add to the list. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five additional sources have now been added so Simone Badal-McCreath clearly has much wider notability than purely local. Stinglehammer (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Lirazelf. The additional sources added after nomination of AfD confirm WPPROF notability. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can the Elsevier Foundation award be considered to be established as having sufficiently prestige to meet notability, as this is the first time the awards has been given? DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough independent coverage to support WP:GNG. It does not matter if the Elsevier Foundation award is any good or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the Elsevier award is intrinsically notable, but it appears to have generated enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not familiar with WP:PROF, I will take a look at it but it seems to pass WP:GNG. I have added additional sources to cement the claim to notability. Janet-O (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets GNG. Sadads (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 14 November 2017 (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. Also, reading (well, trying to read) the article before deletion made my head hurt - this is only marginally not a A1. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Asad Mahmud

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

doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. not an elected MP. Saqib (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text and references relate to family links and selection as a failed candidate, neither of which are grounds of encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — a politician gets a Wikipedia article by holding a notable office, not just running for one. But there's no other evidence of preexisting notability for some other reason being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2017 (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 Retail Food Group. Sandstein 12:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Capers

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

no significant information, nor will there be any except minor noticesof new locations and the like DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Retail Food Group, as a subsidiary company of Retail Food Group. This will improve the merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰
Merge with redirect to Retail Food Group as an owned company. Does not seem to have sufficient IRS to be notable in its own right. ALSO merge over boldly "deleted" content here for Michel's Patisserie and here for It's a Grind Coffee House at the same time. Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Retail Food Group. Not notable enough for its own article but content may still serve useful. Ajf773 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Retail Food Group, the parent company. Also rescue relevant content from Michel's Patisserie and It's a Grind Coffee House as noted by Aoziwe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 8 November 2017 (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. Whether to create a redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 12:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Adonis

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

I doubt that merely being a judge in the show amounts to notability--(some other other judges have been head chefs at prize-winning restaurants, and I haven't challenged those.) DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some coverage in third-party sources (Sydney Morning Herald, CBC) but not enough to establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran a quick search, looks like insubstantial RS, and no indication of notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I could find, there is quite sufficient IRS to support WP:NEXIST to support notability for the subject's restaurant in Perth, but notability is not inherited. If anything the current article material would be a section in an article about the restaurant with redirect not needed due to eponymous naming. I could find nothing about the subject that was not also about the restaurant. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:TOOSOON. WP:ENT says Has had significant roles in multiple ... television shows. In a year's time, if The Great Canadian Baking Show has a second season on CBC Television, she will meet ENT and there will likely be more coverage of her as well. Right now, she doesn't meet ENT, and I don't see how WP:GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Great Canadian Baking Show as her main (only?) role. Plausible search term, logical target, cheap redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 14 November 2017 (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 wall of text in ALL CAPS is disregarded. Sandstein 11:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoffmire

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

Deprodded article. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. A Google News search only turns up passing mentions and interviews if you screen out all the pieces that the subject wrote for the Deseret News. A Google Scholar search turns up a few papers, but none cited more than three times. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above: search looks like insubstantial RS, and has zero indication of notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two most promising sources at first glance turn out to be not useful for establishing notability: the Deseret News link is the subject's byline there; the Bloomberg profile is a semi-algorithmically generated one that gets put out for thousands of non-notable c-suite personnel. A Train^talk 08:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMMEDIATE KEEP Dr. Hoffmire easily fulfills points 5, 6 and 7 of WP: NACADEMIC:

WP:NACADEMIC

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

AND

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

DR. HOFFMIRE HAS BEEN DIRECTOS OF THE SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, WHICH WAS NAMED RECENTLY, THE BEST UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/university-oxford. ADDITIONALLY, HE HAS BEEN DIRECTOR OF THE SAID GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP NETWORK. MOREOVER, DR. HOFFMIRE IS THE HEAD OF THE CENTER ON BUSINESS AND POVERTY, AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON AND IS NOW SENIOR FELLOW AT THE PEKING UNIVERSITY HSBC BUSINESS SCHOOL

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

DR. HOFFMIRE IS CEO OF 2 COMPANIES, ONE IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY, OXFORD PHARMACEUTICALS, WITH MORE THAN $43 MILLION STARTUP FUNDING, AND HE IS CEO OF CADENCE INNOVA, A COMPANY WITH MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES OF WHICH, DR. HOFFMIRE HELPED THEM TO OWN THE COMPANY THROUGH AN ESOP SCHEME; AND THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME HE DID THAT, IN ANOTHER VENTURE, HE HELPED HIIS EMPLOYEES TO OWN THE COMPANY HOFFMIRE & ASSOCIATES, WHICH WAS VALUED IN UP TO $2 BILLION. FURTHERMORE, HIS ADVOCACY FOR SOCIAL WELBEING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP LED TO EDUCATE MORE THAN 1,000,000 PEOPLE IN FINANCIAL LITERATURE, HELPED ENTREPRENEURS TO CREATE 38 STARTUPS, HELPED MORE THAN 5000 HOUSEHOLDS TO PAY THEIR TAXES.

IN ADDITION, THE SOURCES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD PROVIDE THE THIRD PARTY LINKS WITH RESPECT TO THE WP:GNG ISSUE:

http://www.kellogg.ox.ac.uk/discover/people/john-hoffmire/   THE https://byums.org/uploads/email/Profile%20-%20John%20Hoffmire.pdf  BYU MANAGEMENTE SOCIETY  AND  http://oxfordbusinesspovertyconference.com/speakers/john-hoffmire-phd-oxford-university

AND OF CRISP SOCIAL VENTURES, PROVIDE RELIABLE EVIDENCE ABOUT DR. HOFFMIRE ACCOMPLISHMENTS. User :Mario5554 07:26, 11 November 2017 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario5554 (talk • contribs)

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cassin

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

PROD restored at the request of an IP on my user talk page. Although he possibly meets WP:NFOOTY, I can't locate any in-depth reliable sources that would show he also meets WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - doesn't seem like substantial RS, though a few hits on sports related sites (none of which would probably wouldn't qualify as RS). Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:16, 7 November 2017 (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) 11:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feels a bit promotional, fails NFOOTY and GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2017 (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 DJ Hype. Possibly merge stuff from history subject to consensus. Sandstein 11:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubplate Killaz 2: Return of the Ninja

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

A mixtape/compilation released on a minor label; to me, backed by the lack of coverage, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. There was one source [47] I found but I do not believe that alone satisfies the need for multiple secondary sources. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLittle RS that I can see, no reviews or commentary - fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on DJ Hype - it is not really necessary for this article to say twice that the album comes with a free DVD. Vorbee (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DJ Hype, per WP:ATD-R. This is at least a somewhat plausible search term, I guess. A Train^talk 08:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 7 November 2017 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Nadia riots

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

Another WP:NOTNEWS with failing WP:LASTING. Jionakeli (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, with Jionakeli seems to be a news item which fails WP:LASTING. Jionakeli Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kaliganj (community development block) per WP:ATD-M. The suggested merge target article has no mention of this matter, and a merge will improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Kaliganj (community development block) . A few sources have reported or mentioned the incident with new details.[48] (page 38)[49][50][51][52][53] If there is any modification in future, we can rebuild the article but for now a merge would be a fair compromise. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per comments below by Marvellous Spider-Man. And the above sources that I have linked also confirms the discussion of the subject even after a year of the riot. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not only unreliable but heavily biased and were busted for faking[54],[55]. Jionakeli (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"sources"? Your 2 links are from one website targets only one link, but I had linked 6 sources. My point was to show the prevalence of this subject. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are confirmed deaths of 4 people, and this is part of communal riots in India. And there are sources in vernacular language also.

This particular source is not news. Kolkata, May 7: The scale of devastation at the Kaliganj block in West Bengal's Nadia district tells a sorry tale. It has been probably one of the worst communal riots in recent times. Some editors use WP:NOTNEWS to nominate articles they don't like, at AFD due to their political and religious bias. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Faking News is not a reliable source to write articles in Wikipedia, but they had published a satire article on this riot. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement, but WP:SIGCOV in national sources validate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sources provided here. WP:NOTNEWS is not a issue here for a long time now. Capitals00 (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —MBL ^Talk 06:40, 10 November 2017 (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. No reliable sources have been provided to prove claims of notability, so there's really not much choice. No prejudice against recreation, as long as reliable sources are included. ansh 666 05:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Rice (author)

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a non-notable author, sourced mostly to blogs and to reviews of a documentary in which he appears. Lacks significant coverage in third-party RS, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR Fyddlestix (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot find online independent material to support this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The author is notable, he appears in numerous movies as well as documentaries. A Google of his name or of his alias Desertphile turns up 55,000 hits, for his novels and his movies as well as newspaper interviews. Since "The Lure" documentary covering the Forrest Fenn treasure is being released in spots around the world, and since he is the iconic photograph used in the movie, it seems he's certainly a notable character for BLP. Damotclese (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Rice is well known around the world, you can Google his name and get pieces of the history of what he has done in the writing world and in the movie / documentary world, he's not notorious but he is a notable figure, on line as well as off line.

Just last week he was in Santa Fe, New Mexico signing autographs with other authors, there are photographs of him meeting with fans and other well known authors while wearing the same jacket and working-cowboy hat that he appears in on numerous newspaper interviews and in the latest movie "The Lure" which was shown in New Mexico.

Most people who work or recreate in the deserts of the Western United States have heard of him, he's considered to be a "new Edward Abbey" by writing critics. Most people who don't "do" the desert or do treasure hunts will not have heard of him, but he's a real person, he has real fame, he has real fans that, according to local reporters last week, bought him drinks and dinner, one bar tender saying he's "too pretty" to buy his own drinks.

Keep, however it should be noted that the biography is a stub.

Full disclosure: I know his brother in my work in infectious diseases, many of which are zoonotic and many of which are emergent due to changing environments and thus changing ecologies. Both brothers are people of note in certain circles, science circles as well as human rights and civil rights arenas, not to mention environmental arenas as well as novelists and, in David's case, in the movie theaters. BiologistBabe (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this comment and the one above: it's not enough to insist that he's notable, you need to provide evidence of that in the form of reliable sources which are independent of the subject and offer significant coverage of him. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article's references and citations appear to be enough to establish the author's notoriety. His novels are not well known, Milkweed Publishing does not advertise publicly all of the books it publishes, I see, though the author's works are widely available and the BLP touches briefly on some of what one can find using Google. Wikipedia does not need to be all-inclusive, researchers interested in the person's history likely knows some about it, the guy is a character known around the world. Damotclese (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biologist, I agree that the BLP is something of a stub, if the author had a publicist I would acquire his copy and flesh it out. Thing is, he's a notable character, equal to many other BLPs. Damotclese (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has suitable references and citations showing that the biography is accurate and yes, the references show that he's notable. 76.171.220.37 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)— 76.171.220.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, the article contains references and citations showing that the actor is notable. More references could be added, as someone noted the BLP is something of a stub, it could be fleshed out with a list of movies and a list of novels, I suppose. Damotclese (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets look at the sources, shall we? There are currently 7 references in the article:

this is an excerpt from the subject's own writings that he posted himself on a WP:UGC site. Not independent, not even a RS. Cannot possibly confer notability.

This does not appear to be a RS either, it's just a list of BBSes that someone cobbled together from "various" (unamed) sources. It mentions David Rice once, and if we're genereous I suppose it might confirm that he ran one. But that's not a notable accomplishment.

This is a video on the subject's own youtube channel. Not indepenndent, probably not even a RS. Can't confer notability.

This is a blog. Not a RS, can't demonstrate notability.

This is a review of a documentary in which David Rice apparently appears, but it mentions Rice exactly once, in passing: There is one scene where one hunter David describes to Fenn what he would do if he finds the prize and it is rather creepy and a little bit disturbing. That's a passing mention if I ever saw one, they don't even use his full name. Does not demonstrate notability.

This is the subject's own website, for marketing his own (self-published) books. Not independent, not a RS. Cannot confer notability.

This is another review, of the same documentary mentioned above. David Rice is mentioned once, in a photo caption. Another passing mention which does not demonstrate notability.

I'd be happy to look at actual independent RS that actually demonstrate notability - but contrary to the two !votes above it's quite plain that none of the sources currently used in the article meet those criteria. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little notability. He does not meet the notablity criteria for any of the any of the descriptions about him (cowboy, writer, actor), and certainly not for author – his books are self-published, and anybody can do that. There's nothing that's independent of the subject himself. He might be notable one day, but as of now, he's not. Ira Leviton (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to be based on third party sources, not on writings of the article subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional (or at least fan-oriented) article almost unknown and almost-unpublished writer. No independent substantial sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 15 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Ottawa Storm

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

Non notable storm that lasted one day. Two sources are about Ottawa having the rainiest year ever - unrelated to this one day storm. Others is about a power outage. Very minor, very insignificant. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every thunderstorm that happens at all does not automatically need a Wikipedia article just because the power goes out and there's some localized flash flooding — both of which are things that quite routinely happen in conjunction with thunderstorms. What we require is evidence that this would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, such as perhaps a lightning strike setting Parliament on fire, or the Alexandra Bridge collapsing from the sheer volume of precipitation, or an actual tornado ripping through Barrhaven — and even if one of those things did happen, the actual article that resulted would be about those events rather than the thunderstorm per se. But three pieces of same-day coverage in the local media don't demonstrate enduring notability at all. (And, to boot, I'm going to be filing a sockcheck on the creator shortly, because the Ottawa aspect, coupled with the "anything that can be sourced at all automatically warrants an article" aspect, puts me just a little too much in mind of a previously-blocked user.) Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The two sentences of the article are a clear indication that this storm was a routine event. MB 12:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the weather channel. this is a fairly WP:ROUTINE event.Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I already think editors get carried away with every storm that receives a day of coverage or knocks out power for a few days. The 10-year test? Heck, this fails the 1 day test with only local media routine reports.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Icewhiz. 23.16.17.67 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is more like something that should be in Wikinews than Wikipedia (N.B. it is only two sentences long). Vorbee (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2017 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Jacoby-Heron

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

per WP:NOTABILITY, the lack of reliable sources available in a search about her and the fact that two references on her page are from imdb LADY LOTUS • TALK 03:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find more than passing mentions. Galobtter (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is entirely sourced to IMDb. Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of anyone ever credited in a film, as is IMDb. Also IMDb is explicitly listed as not being a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2017 (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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deceased YouTubers

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

Indiscriminate and largely unsourced list of people with YouTube channels who have died. Trivialist (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five sources in the article out of 100-ish entries; WP:BLP isn't even the tip of the iceberg here, and this is just asking to be as bad as List of burn centers in the United States was before it was locked down to lock out drive-by jokes. Also the writing is incredibly poor and the "After their deaths" section is gaudy as heck to have in this type of article. Nate • (chatter) 04:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Also the horde of external links just directs to a Youtube channel, pretty much every list entry fails WP:BLP.Ajf773 (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yup, that's WP:LINKFARM and an WP:ADVERT. Make that four policy violations here. Nate • (chatter) 07:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly just because you have a Youtube account, does not make you notable. Also few references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that of course, Wikipedia isn't a platform for memorials, and that this doesn't gel with Wikipedia policy. However, looking at this list, I can sympathise with the poster in that the page acts as a tribute to these unfortunate people. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and for lack of proper sources. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure LINKFARM and not reliably sourced failing our basic standards. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, subjective and trivial. WP:Memorial and WP:LINKFARM applies. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro Nakajima

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

Non-notable Japanese voice actress. Only one role in Pretty Rhythm Aurora Dream that's kind of starring, but not much else. JA wikipedia is just a credits dump. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A grand total of one bolded role on ANN, and it's not even a lead role. In addition, I couldn't find any significant coverage about her, even in Japanese. All I could find were brief mentions in cast announcements. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2017 (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 speedied as a recreation of a previously deleted/redirected article. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Hrya

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

Political candidate who has not yet served in office. Meatsgains (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a deliberately misspelled attempt to evade the protected redirect that resulted from the earlier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Hyra. I'm speedying it G4 accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2017 (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. Sandstein 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Sanz

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Geejayen (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable musician failing both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Bushranger What was not clear specifically about this AFD? It clearly fails both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG and a lengthy search has produced nothing to prove otherwise. Please advise. Thank you. Geejayen (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt like it might benefit from a little more time for people to look into it; there is no deadline and one more week's chance won't harm. That said, if anyone else feels it should go ahead and be closed, I won't object to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last Life (web series)

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

Non-notable web series lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. It's just a wikipedia page.User:SpongePete2P 7 November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter. In order to have a page, a subject must be notable. Meatsgains (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Several source searches have provided no coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 14 November 2017 (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 Assicurazioni Generali. Sandstein 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generali osiguranje

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

The references in the article are not enough to indicate notablity (they are trivial mention/not about the subject itself). A WP:BEFORE search found no WP:RS that show that this company meets WP:GNG and the more specific WP:ORGCRIT. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Assicurazioni Generali. Generali osiguranje appears to be that company's Croatian arm. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge with Assicurazioni Generali, its partner company. Assicurazioni Generali has no mention of Generali osiguranje, so this will improve the merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max-OT

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

Fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PROMO. Non-noteable nutritional supplement. Comatmebro (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2017 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitches (film series)

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

Not usual to have film series articles for two films. Mostly a content fork of the two films, anything else could be incorporated at the Twitches article. --wooden superman 08:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Bhardwaj

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

This promotional article is about someone whose main claim to fame is winning the Karmaveer Puraskaar, beyond that he seems to fail GNG. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom's reasoning. This seems to pretty much be a WP:1E with background information added about the person from pretty mediocre sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fayaz Ahmad Lone

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

I'm not entirely sure whether this needs to be deleted, but it appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON: a scholar who is only an assistant professor and who appears to have just started publishing more widely. I haven't done a thorough search for sources, but a brief google scholar search reveals articles published only in the last two years, with the expectedly low (for such recent work) number of citations. – Uanfala 10:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an assistant prof at a minor regional institution does suggest WP:TOOSOON. A Google Scholar search returns few papers with low citation counts, and I can't find anything else that would pass WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Datablender

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

Recording label tagged for notability since 2011. No external references. PROD removed by author (judging by username, COI) back in 2008. Judging by website, no activity since 2014. Renata (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable record label. I can find no instances of a mention by an independent, reliable source. I have found three artists which mention Datablender in their discography or in an interview, but none of these artists are notable (have Wikipedia articles). No indication found that the label has made an impact on musical history or culture. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 7 November 2017 (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. There might be notability here, but this article isn't the one we need or deserve. If proper sourcing can be found, then by all means recreate, but until then... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens Gone Wild

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

I genuinely cannot believe this was accepted at AFC. Half of the references are to unreliable sources such as IMDb or RottenTomatoes, a quarter are to generic Google statistics, and the remainder are of questionable reliability. The text on the page sounds great, but it's all just conflated stats and buzzwords. I can't find anything online that isn't a blog, sale site, or bootleg stream. Primefac (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all appearance of notability appears to be the result of severe misuse of references. Artw (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misuse of sources is right. The "immortal classic" ref is straight-up deliberately misleading. --Calton | Talk 17:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the current stated of the article, it appears to be broadcast by a major network, which would make it notable. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hahaahaha that "immortal classic" quote is amazing. Anyway being broadcast by a major network is not a notability criteria. Others are only passing mentions and it does not pass any of the other criteria at WP:NFILM. Galobtter (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BCASTOUTCOMES mentions that criteria. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable film, It is hard to say this film meet even one of 8 points of WP:NFO, some claims of WP:GNG via Google trends were not supported by secondary reportage, all this besides some unreliable sources and the borderline ones.. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2017 (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 Refuse Fascism. Clear consensus to not keep. No consensus about whether to delete, redirect or merge. The redirect is a compromise between these positions. Further actions such as changing redirect target or merging content from history are possible subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 11:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa apocalypse

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

Fails GNG, no long term lasting impacts from a single event based on a hoax Darkness Shines (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes can be notable if widely covered by reliable sources (as is the case here). E.g. pizzagate. Volunteer Marek 06:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WTF is wikipedia becoming. - Netoholic @ 04:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a policy based argument for deletion how exactly? Volunteer Marek 06:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Netoholic is right. This flash-in-the-pan is not encyclopedic. – S. Rich (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Refuse Fascism, where this is already covered in better detail, or perhaps to Antifa (United States). Just another short-lived hoax from Infowars and co, worth mentioning in other articles for its brief coverage in RS but not notable enough per EVENT for a separate article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could be worth a minor mention in some other article but hardly deserving of an article of its own. -- Longhair\^talk 10:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as bog-std. example of WP:NOTNEWS. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete – majorly WP:NOTNEWS and no long term notability Natureium (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: Per Natureium's reasoning. Also, this "article" blatantly violates WP:NPOV and reads as an attack page. The editor who created this page can't get enough in slapping the words "fake news", "conspiracy theory", and "false" in every spot he can possibly find. Also, he misrepresents sources. The TIME source refers to Fox News as "mainstream", but this article says "more established conservative media" when attacking FNC and referring to its mention in the source. Also, reading the FNC source itself (which oddly isn't even cited in the article), FNC admits that the organizers have no intention of violence (is WaPo also to blame for promoting this conspiracy theory?). Thus, this garbage should be deleted. The title can be redirect to the Refuse Fascism article. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that this "Antifa apocalypse" was NOT a conspiracy theory or fake? Can you point me to the closest smoldering ruins of our polity then? I somehow missed all the destruction and hellfire. No sources are being misrepresented, and I don't appreciate your accusation. Your bias is clouding your judgement. Volunteer Marek 16:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that your bias is clouding your judgment -- we all know what your political views are, and I could tell it was your work when I read it (even before checking the article history). An editor who paid more attention to NPOV would have worded it much differently, at least using the sources you used. And no, I am not saying what you think I'm saying. Just because something is a conspiracy theory/fake news/etc. doesn't mean we should go overboard with using such terms in every place we can. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're struggling with actually addressing the question and instead have decided to comment on me personally. You also sound very familiar. Volunteer Marek 02:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I know where you're going on the first part -- you want to drag me into a debate on whether this is actually fake news or not (which is completely irrelevant with my concerns). While I also think this is a hoax/fake news/conspiracy theory, I strongly disagree with shoving that fact in people's faces, and it won't even change people's opinions.

I also find it interesting that you are complaining about "comment[ing] on [you] personally," when you said the very exact same thing about me in your comment above. Also, you have have several comments recently where you made moralizing comments attacking others (like at Talk:Roy Moore), accusing me of being a POV-pusher, and now even implying (falsely) that I'm a sock. Your behavior is toxic, violates WP:PERSONAL, and I am seriously considering reporting you. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't imply you were a sock. But it's pretty clear where you're getting your talking points from. As to my comments on Roy Moore - you deserved every bit of it as your comments there were quite shameful. Volunteer Marek 02:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, more moralizing and demonizing people who don't hold the same views as youself. With this toxic behavior, you also deserve the treatment some editors give you. And tell me what "You also sound very familiar" means beside being a sock, something I have never done? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Antifa (United States). My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial, barely 'news'. Topic will be forgotten in a week by anyone who's aware of it now. Cjhard (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Refuse Fascism or merge into Antifa (United States) per WP:NOTNEWS. The main Antifa article does not seem to currently cover it, so in this case a simple redirect would not be enough. —Paleo Neonate – 21:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Refuse Fascism#November_4.2C_2017 and/or merge info into Antifa (United States) - The necessary info has been covered well enough in Refuse Fascism. The Verified Cactus 100% 01:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: as the creator of this article I'm fine with it being merged, though I would prefer it be merged to the main Antifa article rather than the "Refuse Fascism" article, since I'm not sure if the latter one is even notable. Volunteer Marek 16:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Refuse Fascism, they claim not to be affiliated with Antifa, and the article also says that the claim of civil war was in response to protests that they were organizing on 4 Nov, though Infowars and other similar sources were simply using the umbrella term "Antifa" to describe the threat. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Antifa (United States). Insufficiently notable for a standalone article. Topic is already covered in detail in Refuse Fascism as mentioned, but this article should not be merged or redirected there as that group is not formally affiliated with the Antifa movement. Funcrunch (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Antifa (United States). Disinformation campaigns in politics are of note, and this one can be merged with the Twitter hoax into a sub-section in Antifa with little problem. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: such a ridiculous and insignificant conspiracy theory that isn't not even worth a mention here. It isn't even in the level of notability of Pizzagate or Birtherism. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be in either the fake news, fake outrage or hoax spreading business. This was covered in jest and is not a serious hoax or fake news item and WP shouldn't cover either as if it where. Had it been widely reported prior to being covered in jest, it would have been covered as a noteworthy upcoming event. It was not and was only created to use Wikipedia to push it as a hoax and CT. WP is not that platform. --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually bother reading the article? The article was NOT created to push a hoax. It's sort of funny that another editor right above is arguing that the article makes too much of this being a hoax and here you are confused on the subject. Volunteer Marek 02:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the comment above agrees with me, your comment has no merit. If it was significant, the first edition of the article wouldn't have claimed it was a hoa. But this was so insignificant as to not warrant any mention until someone created it to spread the notion that these hoaxes were maintream. Wikipedia is not your forum for pushing fringe views. That includes the fringe view that this was a noteworthy hoax. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother engaging VM. He likes to try to get a rise out of anyone he disagrees with. Natureium (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect all relevant material to Refuse Fascism, where the conspiracy theory originated. HastyBriar321 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2017 (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. per G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MassiveYR but I also note that there is a consensus here to delete as well. SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Goldstuck

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

Fails the criteria for notability. References have no substance and/or are not intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Subject of article fails primary notability requirements such as WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore, references provided in the aforementioned article do not substantiate the articles claims or subject in any way. Almost as if the article's creator is entirely oblivious of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as regards establishing notability.Celestina007 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've found some coverage on him like here & here. Mr RD 17:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both of those are company announcements and are therefore considered PRIMARY sources. Primary sources do not count towards notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Found much better sources on him here and here. He's behind the modern jukebox so am sure there are more primary sources on him out there. Krada123 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cannot access the bloomberg article - perhaps you could summarise what is said about Goldstuck? From the snippets I have managed to find culled from the article, it appears that the article relies on an interview with Goldstuck or a series of quotations at the very least. This *may* be considered a PRIMARY source and *may* not be considered allowable for the purposes of establishing notability. Your second reference from billboard.com notes that Goldstuck was awarded with an award as follows: "The Spirit of Life Award, the highest honor bestowed by City of Hope, is presented annually to individuals who have made a notable contribution to their community and profession." According to WP:ANYBIO, a person meets the criteria if the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. The award does not appear sufficiently notable to merit its own article here, nor is there any mention of the award in the City of Hope National Medical Center article so it does not appear to me that the award meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I found the full Bloomberg article here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krada123 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Board member of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, awards and charitable work too from looking at an interview that can be found here. Also, innovations in vending industry here Blue2berry (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both the interview in touchtunes.com and the interview in the vendingtimes.com would not be considered "independent of the subject" or "intellectually independent" and both fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an advertorially toned BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The subject is not independently notable of TouchTunes where he "developed artists" etc. Notability is not inherited from notable artists either. The TouchTunes article looks to be heavily promotional as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The PDF here is actually from the gaming industry's RePlay Magazine not TouchTunes. Sorry, I don't have access to back issues of RePlay, but I am sure someone in the community could provide the actual article link. I also found several others here and [56] and [57]. I am not understanding the notability and independent sourcing issues when there are existing Wikipedia articles [58] much less sourcing/notability and the same award mentioned to be an issue.67.246.86.156 (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - there are five areas where notability could be argued - co-founder of J Records; President of RCA Music; President of BMG; successful music producer; and CEO of a company (TouchTunes) on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there's little to no media coverage I can find on his tenures at those companies, or anything indicating he was directly responsible for the named musicians' successes. The Bloomberg article is good [59] but I'd like to see more to pass the notability threshold. The current company - TouchTunes, is itself borderline. I can't find very much coverage on them either. The reason this isn't a full delete but instead a weak delete is that there's another article on an RCA President Tom Corson that is similar in sourcing, but with slightly more coverage. I don't know enough about the management structure of a big music company to determine whether being President by itself is enough to show notability, but my instinct tells me there's not enough here. If we go delete, Corson and TouchTunes might warrant a look also. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 00:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These sources are worth considering - BusinessWeek and Crain's Krada123 (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmmm ... the BusinessWeek reference doesn't really have must to say about Charles Goldstuck - here's the text I can see in the abstract "Charles Goldstuck, TouchTunes chief executive officer, hopes to introduce the Virtuo overseas and says it could be a way for the music industry to make money in countries where piracy is rampant, such as China." So it provides his title and this paraphrases his own quotation. I would argue that it is not intellectually independent. Similarly, the Crain's reference has only published quotations from Goldstuck. Nothing independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I mean he pretty much is the company, his views, his plans, etc. and execs working below him and less notable have wikis- Tom Corson Richard Palmese Krada123 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His work on modern jukebox was profiled here and here Krada123 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging these up. The Esquire source being more about the company would lead me more to keeping the TouchTunes article, and the Soundnet source looks more like a marketing site, so I still don't think this is enough for Mr. Goldstuck to pass notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Soundnet is a UK-based blog that covers the industry. Again I have to say that he is the company, he is behind all of the innovations etc.that are being covered in all of these press pieces. Krada123 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems like notability is moot when you look at an article like this Richard Palmese. Goldstuck A quick view of Clive Davis's book here mentions him throughout stating things like “Charles Goldstuck was clearly my anointed successor” Page 437, in "eighteen months Charles had attained significant stature and was well respected.” Page 447,“Charles Goldstuck and I negotiated the right for Alicia (Keys) to come to J Records” Page 455,and Strauss and L.A. (Reid) met with Charles (Goldstuck) and offered him everything under the sun to convince him to stay at Artista and work as L.A.’s (Reid) number two man.” Sounds like a major player in the music industry. I think his TouchTunes company might be small, but is most innovative within that industry and was even the subject of a Harvard Research review http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=47386 here]. These jukboxes can even call you a ride home from a bar [60] and CNET says they are biggest in-venue streaming service here. Blue2berry (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, if pages like the two mentioned, Tom Corson and Richard Palmese, meet notability standards when they work below Goldstuck, no name recognition, etc. then seems like notability is moot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krada123 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability of Tom Corson and Richard Palmese has nothing to do with the notability of Charles Goldstuck. Notability isn't related or inherited. Tom may say that Charles is a fine fellow, but that doesn't bestow notability on him. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThat's not the point we were making. Comparatively those two entries are significantly less notable people than Goldstuck. He is all around a more prominent and notable figure. To me it doesn't really make sense that Goldstuck's notability is in question when you have entries like those. I think the Goldstuck entry needs editing but I don't think there's a question of whether it deserves to be up. Krada123 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2017 (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. Editors are reminded that while someone's position may not be a "they're notable because they're _____" pass, if they meet GNG then that is irrelevant, and it seems that we have enough here to meet that, between occasional national coverage and persistent local. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Demings

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

WP:BLP of a county sheriff, written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate G4 speedy but not really making a stronger case for notability. County sheriff is not a level of office that hands its holders an automatic notability pass just for existing -- but this is not referenced to the depth and breadth of coverage needed to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Of the ten sources here, seven are WP:ROUTINE election-related coverage, including campaign brochures and raw tables of election results, that any county sheriff anywhere could always show because election-related coverage always exists; one more is a primary source that cannot assist notability at all; and one is far more about his wife than him. There's literally only one source here that speaks to his potential notability by being about him in any non-trivial and non-routine and non-primary and non-namechecky way, but one source isn't enough to pass WP:GNG all by itself. To qualify for an article, a county sheriff has to be demonstrably more notable than most other county sheriffs by virtue of being able to show more and wider press coverage than most other county sheriffs could show, but that's not what the sourcing here is demonstrating. And no, he doesn't inherit notability just because his wife's in Congress now, either. Bearcat (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; his position and "life" does not rise to a level of notability per GNG. Could be mentioned in his wife's article, but otherwise trivial. Kierzek (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Former chief of police of Orlando Police Department, a large department with over 700 officers, and currently heads an even larger sheriff's department with over 2,400 employees. I think that alone makes him notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for a police chief is "how much reliable source coverage does he have or not have in media?", not "how many people happen to have him as their boss?" Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said the notability criteria for such a senior figure are governed by WP:COMMONSENSE, but there you go... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, which as a direct result of that has tremendous problems with people trying to misuse us as a public relations platform or as a forum for POV opinioneering or rumour-mongering about our article subjects, insisting on proper sourceability is the common sense position. There's nothing remotely "common sense" about giving county sheriffs (or anybody else, for that matter) an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist — the common sense position does require legitimate sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the article does have legitimate sources. He clearly holds and held the posts claimed. You're arguing they're not sufficient for notability; I'm arguing they are. Please don't characterise this as anything other than what it is: a notability dispute, not a sourcing dispute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC as has not received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". He does not inherit notability from his wife nor his role. AusLondonder (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd that minor politicians do then! We really do continue to have double standards on Wikipedia. He doesn't "inherit" notability from his role; he is notable because of his senior role. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, minor politicians (city councillors, school board trustees, small-town mayors, etc.) don't "inherit" anything either — they get deleted if they can't be reliably sourced as the subject of an unusual volume of press coverage that marks them out as more notable than the norm for their level of prominence. State and federal legislators, on the other hand, do not hold "minor" roles — they hold roles that make them significantly more prominent than small-town mayors or school board trustees, and even if their articles are sometimes inadequate in their existing form, they're of much more than purely local interest and are always improvable. There's no equivalency to be drawn here between a county sheriff and a state or federal legislator: county sheriff is a local office, not a state or federal one, so the keepability test is not passed just because a few sources exist, because a few sources always exist for all county sheriffs. The notability test for local offices is "significantly more notable than the norm", not "automatically included just because the same purely local sources exist for him that would exist for anybody else at that level too". Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say municipal politicians? I was referring to every single member of a national or sub-national legislature. Many of whom are indeed "minor politicians" and are far less significant than the chief of two major police agencies (and are, frankly, often less well-known). Yet we give them a free pass just because of the post they hold, so the implication that we don't ever do this is clear piffle. And please stop referring to "inheriting". Nobody is saying anybody inherits anything. "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." Nope, that doesn't apply. It would apply if I was saying he was notable because of his wife (which I'm certainly not); it does not apply if I say he is notable because of his senior post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State or federal legislators are most certainly not "minor" politicians by any rational or sane measure — they may not all be as famous as Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau or Angela Merkel, but state and federal legislatures are important political bodies whose decisions have profound impacts on society and history and economics. It's the people in the US Congress, for example, who have ultimate control over whether Donald Trump will get his agenda passed or not, not his own will; it was a vote of confidence in the legislature, not a clear-cut victory for either party in the election, that decided who the new premier of British Columbia is; and it's the Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom who have control of how long Theresa May is or isn't going to get to keep her job. So they have a lot of control over the political agenda, which makes them significantly more than "minor" figures even if they're not all internationally famous. There's an important public service at stake in having information about legislators, because they matter to a broad readership — people need to know exactly who's voting on important issues, like whether they get to have health insurance or not, whether their taxes are going up or down, and on and so forth. Politicians at the state or federal levels are exactly the kind of topic any encyclopedia worth its salt would be expected to have articles about; county sheriffs are not, save rare exceptions on the order of Joe Arpaio who have an unusual volume of nationalized coverage. Bearcat (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course many of them are minor politicians. Many of them will never do anything significant in their entire careers apart from turn up and vote occasionally. And this was often even more the case in the past and also with "legislatures" in totalitarian states which are just rubber-stamping bodies, yet we still give all of them a free pass. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Apart from turn up and vote on important legislation which matters, thereby making it critically important for every American to have access to neutral and verifiable information about everybody who's voting on their financial and social futures." FTFY, HTH, HAND. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY, coverage of unique aspects of his career (first black police chief in Orlando) goes back to 1998; and the details of the bio are reliably sourced. But it's the coverage of the fact that when he ran for and won the election for Sheriff (of a big deal County, because: Orlando), his wife was Police Chief of Orlando that brought non-ROUEINE coverage. Also, special attention is drwan becase he was the first black police chief in Orlando, first black Sheriff in Orange County, and the first black head of the Florida sheriffs association - more can be added about these themes, which have attracted coverage. The fact that his wife os now a congresswoman also makes people interested in him, But it was the unusual married-couple-head-overlapping-police-agencies got coverage that goes well beyond ROUTINE, here's a sampling of what's out there: Jerry and Val Demings; Married couple lead area policing; Jerry and Val Demings are sheriff and police chief in the Orlando area. Conflict of interest? No, they say. AP/Los Angeles Times ; Married Cops to Head Next Door Agencies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, that old AfD is deeply unpersuasive: nobody attended and it sounds as though nobody had bothered ot source the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage does not rise above routine coverage to show true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been edited extensively by E.M.Gregory since nomination and that bears examination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per E.M.Gregory above. There is significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources, including both local and national sources, more than enough to clear general notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, as subject is a notable political figure. KingAntenor (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2017 (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.