Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 August	6 August >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick S. Goring[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable primarily as the (lord) mayor of a small town. The town is not large enough to hand its (lord) mayors an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL, and the article is not reliably sourced well enough to media coverage about him to get over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion criteria for local officeholders -- the only source actually present here is a brief namecheck of his existence in a very general history of why this town gets to call its mayors "lord mayor". (And just for the record, it's not for the reasons why a British mayor would get that title.) Politicians at the local level, especially in small towns, don't automatically qualify for articles just because they can be nominally verified as existing; they need to be demonstrated and sourced as significantly more notable than the norm, but nothing here does that.

There's also a conflict of interest here — I won't go into precise detail so I don't out anyone, but I have been able to confirm that Goring did have relatives whose surname corresponds neatly to the usernames of both the article creator and the person who uploaded the "scanned from a family photo album" image in the infobox. (And then after writing that I discovered that the creator openly states the family relationship to Goring right on their own userpage. Leave it to me to make a one-step job five times harder than it needs to be!) Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability as per MOS:CA#Municipal politics. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Our prolific Canadian editor appears to be right. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.-Umair Aj (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:15, 12 August 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Gleaves[edit]

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

Unreferenced (except for IMDb, which is not a reliable source) biography of a musician, whose only claim of notability is having been in an Elvis Presley film -- in a role so minor that his "character name" in the IMDb profile is literally, I'm not even kidding, "Minor role". As always, every person in every film does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, and neither does every musician -- he must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about him in media to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. Plus having a minor role in a film does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no reliable sources. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 22:52, 12 August 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. So Why 16:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio (Seba) Sebastianelli[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIO of a musician and publisher, making no particularly strong claim of notability for either endeavour and referenced to no reliable source coverage: the only references here are a primary source and two blog entries, not substantive coverage in real media. And even if his notability could be properly demonstrated, conflict of interest says he doesn't get to write the article himself. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody other than the subject himself can write and source an article properly, but nothing here is good enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 6 August 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. All uninvolved editors agreed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epicflow[edit]

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

Non-notable software, a Google search did not reveal any independent in-depth coverage. None of the 16 used sources (2 are duplicates) qualifies as a fully independent reliable source with in-depth coverage (I'll add a detailed source review below). A possible "conflict of interest" hasn't been clarified and disclosed yet. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A more detailed review of the used sources (reference numbering as of now, may change):

Refs #1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 18 are self-published sources.
Ref #4: broken link, but not an independent reliable source anyway (per main text)
Ref #5: self-published blog site by a "PMP Professional" with unclear expertise, offers sponsored advertising and reviews
Ref #7: passing mention, no in-depth independent coverage
Ref #8: PR fluff parroting the company's interview statements, not an independent reliable source
Ref #9: Advertorial largely based on the company's own research - not independent.
Ref #10: Listing on a marketing platform (company input is accepted, the listing is based on company information).
Refs #11 and 12: Not independent coverage (links to related publications)
Ref #13: article by one of the involved researchers
Ref #15: dead link, unclear source (no author or publication details), seems to be about a wider topic and not specifically about this particular software.
Refs #16 and 17: Duplicates of previous sources (of ref #5 and #10).

In short: a lot of PR activities and professional marketing, but nothing to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated from July, 24 by Techforcatch

Refs #1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 18 are self-published sources.

Even though the references are self-published, they were approved by our customers. The references were updated by reducing the number of mentions to one.

Ref #4: broken link, but not an independent reliable source anyway (per main text)

Ref #4 is the link to the article in the group of project management professionals. Here’s the part of it, if you lack access to this group. The article shows that Flow MPM, an earlier version of Epicflow, helped Pilz Netherlands win National Business Success 2015 Award. LinkedIn members can get access to this group.https://www.dropbox.com/s/tv56mbcoantrzat/Screenshot%202017-07-24%2019.19.59.png?dl=0

Ref #7: passing mention, no in-depth independent coverage

Ref#7 is a success story, based on the benefits Epicflow’s real clients get after using the software for three months.

Ref #8: PR fluff parroting the company's interview statements, not an independent reliable source.

StartUs Magazine is an independent source. The article was autonomously written by Daniel Tanque after the Web Summit 2016, Lisbon. It does not include any advertising material, rather spreads the news about the release of a project management tool, pointing to its unique features that have not been developed before.

Ref #9: Advertorial largely based on the company's own research - not independent.

Ref #9 (an article about Epicflow and MS Project) was approved by an independent editor of Project Accelerator with no costs spent for publishing.

Ref #10: Listing on a marketing platform (company input is accepted, the listing is based on company information).

The content was written independently by Finances Online expert, after crediting Epicflow with two awards without pursuing any marketing goals.

Refs #11 and 12: Not independent coverage (links to related publications)

Refs #11 and 12 prove scientific PM expertise of our researchers - Jan Willem Tromp and Albert Ponsteen. These are publications in Procedia, a reliable scientific source with peer-reviews under the responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014.

Ref #13: article by one of the involved researchers

The article was approved by an independent editor from Project-Management.com. Our researcher’s expertise in this domain has already been shown above, as he contributed to a reliable scientific journal under responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014.

Ref #15: dead link, unclear source (no author or publication details), seems to be about a wider topic and not specifically about this particular software.

Ref #15 was updated.

Refs #16 and 17: Duplicates of previous sources (of ref #5 and #10).

Refs #16 and 17 were updated.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Techforcatch (talk • contribs)

@Techforcatch:. Thank you for your detailed response, but it seems we have vastly differing views on these sources, and on what constitutes an independent reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. Anyway, other uninvolved editors will offer additional feedback, so we don't have to start a lengthy 1v1 discussion just now. Aside from this article-related disagreement, please make sure to disclose your apparent "conflict of interest" (see your user talkpage for more information). You'll find the appropriate templates to add at WP:DISCLOSE (unpaid COI) or WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE (paid COI). Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is entirely obvious that the article has been chiefly written by an editor with a conflict of interest and that many of the sources are bunk. Could the post-relist discussion please determine if there are any good sources at all?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A few more details regarding the objections against deletion, although comments by other uninvolved editors would obviously be more useful:
- Ref #8: Startus Magazine is a trade magazine with limited objectivity and no journalistic distance to their topics (see also their about page.
- Ref #9: Whether the article was placed cost-free or for a fee is irrelevant. The content is not independently written and serves a clear self-promotional purpose.
- Ref #10: Here is the source's application page where companies can conveniently suggest their own products and specify their estimated advertising budget. Note the 4 "advantages" on top - pure marketing, and not a source of reliable independent information.

While some of the sources (i.e. of the involved researchers) are possibly reliable, none of the given sources are independent and reliable. Such affiliated sources may be used to source uncontroversial content (with some caution), but they don't establish notability per WP:GNG. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hi. First, I must mention that the analysis of GermanJoe is a notability analysis, not a merit analysis for each source. What I mean is, citation #1 (which the same as #2 and #3) is good enough for the purpose it is serving: Giving a simple launch date. However, the whole fate of the article hinges on citations #11 through #15, which does not correspond to our requirements set forth by WP:NPOV and WP:N. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One included ref ([1]) seems to work towards demonstrating notability. The requirement is for multiple such references. I was unable to find any more like this. I am prepared to change my !vote if that situation changes. ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kvng:, just for clarity: Jan Willem Tromp is working for GLOW Management (one of the developing companies). He is listed as a "Managing Partner" on Linkedin, and several times in central roles on the company's website. His own articles clearly fail the "independent" requirement to establish notability. I am not assessing "reliability" one way or the other, but sources need to meet both criteria at once per WP:GNG. GermanJoe (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Grudgingly - I like to give the benefit of the doubt, but while at first glance I thought there were a lot of scholarly sources for this, it turns out the name is used for different things and the "other" Epicflow" is really well represented, but not this one. Doesn't appear to be notable in sources I could find. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 00:52, 10 August 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 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City National Arena[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources from the Las Vegas area and the primary tenant, the Vegas Golden Knights. Could be integrated/merged into the Team information section of the Golden Knights' article but at this point because of the WP:RECENTISM it appears to just be WP:TOOSOON. Yosemiter (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Candidates for deletion 194.28.127.53 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete As it stands, not nearly enough information for a standalone facility that hasn't even opened yet. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable arena that doesn't need a mention in the VGK article, let alone it's own article. Also some serious WP:Own going on on the article. 194.28.127.53 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is poorly done and fails to properly establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article establishes notability. Darkson (I survived the 525!) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vegas Golden Knights. TOOSOON for a standalone article, but the topic is significant to a comprehensive understanding of the team. See for example Toronto Maple Leafs § Home arenas and practice facilities. Toohool (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toohool: While it certainly could have one sentence in the team info section on the Golden Knights' page, I highly doubt it deserves its own section like the Leafs. Big difference when comparing a team that has yet to play vs. one that has played 100 seasons. I would assume (assume being the keyword in that it just my observational opinion) that 99% of readers and hockey fans looking into information on the team are not looking for info about the team's practices and offices. Most just care about where to find them when they play games (which is what that Leafs' section is primarily about as well, the practice facility gets four sentences). Yosemiter (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in agreement then that the arena should be mentioned in the team article (whether it be 1 sentence or 4 sentences). So why wouldn't we merge or redirect instead of delete? Toohool (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toohool: I said "it could have one sentence", but I am not convinced that it should. As for a redirect, what would link there other than the Golden Knights? (The UNLV Rebels are currently an independent Div I club team and is still a ways off from jumping to NCAA level. It is possible the WSHL LV Storm could move in sometime as the WSHL will use the facility in their midseason showcase this year. The important thing to note though for both those teams is that they are both unlikely to meet GNG either right now.) I am also not quite sure how to incorporate it into the article at this time (but that is not to say that wouldn't work better once the team info section is properly expanded). Yosemiter (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: A redirect doesn't have to have links to be useful (it can be searched directly by users, and is also useful because it can be categorized), but it could linked from, for example, Summerlin, Nevada, Downtown Summerlin, UNLV Rebels (if someone adds a section on the hockey team), Western States Hockey League (if the Storm does end up moving there). And there's nothing difficult about integrating this info in the article, I just did it. Toohool (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. As far as whether "the topic is significant to a comprehensive understanding of the team" ... huh?? Quite aside from that a redirect doesn't provide a "comprehensive" anything, what "understanding of the team" is conferred by anything about its practice rink? Teams practice places, full stop. An article about a team's practice rink gives you as much understanding about that team as (say) knowing that Hilary Knight prefers Bauer skates tells you about her. Ravenswing 17:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: Obviously a redirect doesn't contribute to an understanding of the topic, but my point is that info about the arena should be included in the team article. The redirect is just a natural consequence of that. This is not just their "practice rink", it's a $25-million standalone facility that the team built and operates, which is their headquarters, which is also open to the public as a community attraction, was considered important enough for a bank to buy the naming rights, and has been the sole subject of several in-depth news articles. What other article about a business would exclude such a facility from being mentioned? Toohool (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ones where such facilities weren't particularly noteworthy. If the rink's been the sole subject of several indepth news articles, then the discussion's entirely moot, because it would meet the GNG, yes? But the rest? Team headquarters buildings aren't notable by definition, not even if millions are spent on them. Public attractions aren't notable just by way of them being open to the public. Businesses buy all manner of naming rights these days, all the way down to Little League teams and local 5k charity runs. Ravenswing 18:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several news articles: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. IMO, they don't reach the level of GNG, but coverage that is less than GNG level can be an indicator that some information should be included in an article. You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody here is claiming that the arena is notable, and notability is not the standard for inclusion in an article. Toohool (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this becomes more notable later, create the page. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON Quinton Feldberg (talk) 22:46, 12 August 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Om Sung-chol[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GNG fail. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:43, 5 August 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) 21:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Najeeb Haroon[edit]

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

He fails WP:NPOL and seems to fail harder WP:GNG too. Greenbörg (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a senior member of a political party's internal organizational structure is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself. It could still get him an article if it were sourced to enough reliable source coverage about his work in that role to clear WP:GNG, but there's nowhere near enough coverage being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 8 August 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) 21:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Software[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable company, fails WP:CORP. Most sources cited are from the company itself, and those that are not only mention the company in passing and as such fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Also note this page has been speedy deleted under A7 several times in the deletion log. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and I was not able to find any additional. shoy (reactions) 17:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:46, 5 August 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) 21:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siavash Rad[edit]

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

Most of these references (soundcloud, aquasound, etc.) are not references to independent sources, they are links to where music can be heard or to promotional material for the subject. No substantive discussion in reliable independent secondary published sources. KDS4444 (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references here are reliable sources for the purposes of establishing wikinotability, and nothing claimed in the article entitles him to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of reliable sourcing support for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can only find links to songs. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:47, 5 August 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) 21:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firdous Shamim Naqvi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:42, 5 August 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. So Why 16:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Khan Suri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seems to pass WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 5 August 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas WÜSTER[edit]

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

Biography, formatted and sourced like a genealogy rather than an encyclopedia article, about a person whose strongest discernible claim of notability is that he lived in the looming shadow of war (which in the 1600s, who didn't?) Nothing here passes any subject-specific inclusion standard, and none of the sourcing counts toward WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He lived in the Holy Roman Empire during the 30 years war. He does not even seem to have had a discernible role in the war. This is not enough for notability. I have nominated the article on his equally non-notable son for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete STRONGLY. This is just one of many people who lived and died during that time. We are not a webhost for genealogy; we are a charitable encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 8 August 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. So Why 16:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

İlksen Şermin Özdemir[edit]

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

Non-notable person and fails Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She officiated at the 2016 IIHF Women's World Championship Division II. CeeGee 11:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CeeGee. It is obvious from this and other mass nominations that nominator didn't bother to do a stitch of WP:BEFORE. This is getting completely out of hand. Smartyllama (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is obvious to me that this player fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. However if experienced user user:CeeGee can show a GNG pass from Turkish sources than I would be happy to change my mind. Nearly all of the "mass nominations" have been fails, I at a loss as to what the problem is with sportsfan spending a lot of effort to enforce wikipedia guidelines, and occasionally failing.18abruce (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article? She's a referee, not a player. Smartyllama (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I watched games she officiated in, I assumed that someone who became an international official played as well and was hopeful there was some sort coverage of her bio. It is rather rare that an official would be notable, never mind one who gets assignments at the lowest levels of female competition. The sources listed as an official do nothing to support GNG, I do not believe that the figure skating ones do either, but I do not have much experience there. If I am missing something about the figure skating I apologize, but I did try several google searches in english and turkish with no luck. User:Smartyllama you voted keep, on what basis, you failed to give any. And to that point neither did CeeGee, other than being an official at a low level tournament when officiating at the top level is not enough to support notability.18abruce (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. None at all, and were we going to take anyone to ANI, I'd just as soon it be the people tossing around bad faith accusations when it's plain they've not taken so much as a cursory look at the sources involved. The GNG stipulates that a source provide the subject coverage in "significant detail" to qualify as supporting notability. Simple namedrops do not, and never have, qualified. As far as NHOCKEY goes, even if presumptive notability to any level of women's hockey was accorded (which it is not, save for participation at the Olympic Games, which falls under a different SNG), it provides no presumptive notability for men's play below the topmost pool at the Worlds. She has, of course, no presumptive notability as a figure skater, WP:NSKATE not granting the same to junior-level competition. Would CeeGee or Smartyllama care to proffer a valid ground upon which to keep the article? Ravenswing 15:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't come close to meeting NHOCKEY. So baring that needs to meet GNG. I can find no sources that indicate she meets GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing and DJSasso. Deadman137 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 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 Oswald Foundation. The target's notability can be discussed separately but does not impede a merge close here So Why 15:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Chowdhary[edit]

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

Lots of references and superficially impressive, but am struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely many references that I reduced. Consider merging with Oswald Foundation? 182.69.63.72 (talk)

Merge to Oswald Foundation. Nothing shows any real notability except for the Oswald Foundation. President of a secondary school computer club? Volunteer at an organization? Someone's reaching for notability here, and there's more than a whiff of undeclared paid editing. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - next question is if the Oswald Foundation is notable. Questionable on that, especially with the undeclared COI around these articles. Ravensfire (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Anand here from the article. I second with Ravensfire, notability is absolutely questionable, but my opinion is irrelevant as COI. Please feel free to merge or delete the article. Just putting it out there, I didn't pay someone to edit it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnandChowdhary0 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that Chowdhary is notable as an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 7 August 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 redirect of this page to Lissi und der wilde Kaiser can be re-performed if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lissi[edit]

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

Non-notable web star. Absolutely no secondary or tertiary sources. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 19:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article doesn't necessarily need to be deleted. It could go back to being a redirect, which was the original revision of the page, before being made into an article. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 19:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the page previously directed to Lissi und der wilde Kaiser, yet as a redirect got practically no hits so could be considered ineffective. Thus, rather than simply redirect back, I figure it makes more sense to delete the article as neither the current content nor the redirect seems to serve any meaningful purpose. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though unlike the previous contributor I do think it makes sense to keep the redirect to Lissi und der wilde Kaiser; redirects don't cost us anything. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:02, 7 August 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. Note that the consensus here is clearly for deletion (i.e. it's G4-eligible), but it's also a major copyright violation so it's being deleted officially as WP:G12. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Tillman[edit]

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

No reliable sources found and no mentions or independent articles from GNEWS. It's a case of WP:TOOSOON Zazzysa (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON as minor roles in unreleased films, needs some prominent roles to qualify for an article with more coverage in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails our Notability guideline for actors. Unreferenced. He has no major roles at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 8 August 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 10:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales University Theatrical Society[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page for a student theatre society. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:NORG not found; what comes is PR-driven or trivial mentions. Proposing either a Delete or a Redirect to University of New South Wales. Previous AfDs closed as Keep (2005) and Delete (2007). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in this article confirms this is a notable organisation. The fact it has been deleted once, and then speedily deleted two times after that, is good enough reason to salt this article. Ajf773 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into University of New South Wales as the start of a new section called something like "Student life". Does not seem at all notable in its own right and hence does not deserve its own article at this time. Aoziwe (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. has no notability outside the university. should also note this is not affiliated with National Institute of Dramatic Art a separate institution but across the road which has produced countless notable actors. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 7 August 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. So Why 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Tuft[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be PROMO for a new book The Secrets of Weight Loss I Wish I Had Known 100 lbs Ago (gNews search produces nothing [8]), gNews search on "Priscilla Tuft" [9] produces almost nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 6 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Vee Model[edit]

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

None of the references appear to discuss this specific model; V-Model (software development) is a separate article. Massive amounts of unsourced material that are possibly original research. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also, 7 of the 10 references are to books/papers by Forsberg and Mooz. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd relist. I am abstaining from participating because of my ignorance of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:36, 5 August 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) 21:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Webber, German Engineer[edit]

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

Neither 'reference' appear to mention his name and I'm not finding anything on Google. Derek Andrews (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, poor sourcing, not clear that this his company was particularly noteworthy. —Kusma (t·c) 09:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill business owner and engineer. I don't see what was special about him. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 8 August 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 nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYMO Corporation Support For Old Models Solution[edit]

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

WP:NOTMANUAL, also WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Cahk (talk) 17:20, 5 August 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 15:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Norton[edit]

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

An earlier incarnation of this article was AfD'd just over 12 months ago with the general consensus being that it was too soon for this young DJ to pass notability standards. I submit that it may well still be too soon. While there are plenty of links, these are to the tracks themselves, rather than to the depth and breadth of coverage required by NMUSIC/GNG. He's still very much an up-and-comer, but what I can see suggests he's not quite there yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no new !votes since JPL's.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON. One popular remix is not sufficient for encyclopedia notability. No albums and no charting singles. Articles is sourced almost exclusively to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 5 August 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) 21:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UST Baccalaureate Mass[edit]

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

I redirected this article because I could not identify sources which were not either primary or non-regional according to WP:N/WP:NORG. My redirect was contested. I continue to hold the belief that an examination of the sources will show that the sources are indeed low quality, so I am submitting this article to AFD. Izno (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable topic part of a walled garden of a barely notable university.PRehse (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; already covered in Traditions_of_the_University_of_Santo_Tomas, also up for deletion. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 8 August 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. So Why 15:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraton Annaba[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article redirected during a WP:PROD only be restarted by another editor. No evidence of notability Ajf773 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source provided just confirms it exists. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 5 August 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 Foundry (band). So Why 15:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Brattin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Sources given are press releases and/or only mention the subject in conjunction with the band Foundry. Notability is not inherited by association. Google searches revealed some stand alone coverage in self-published or related sources such as corporate profiles or other online communities. However, insufficient to establish WP:INDY, WP:N and WP:SOURCE _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foundry (band), assuming the group is notable. I'm not seeing coverage to suggest that a standalone page for this member is warranted. gongshow talk 00:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Foundry (band), as {{R from member}}. I too can see no evidence of standalone notability. Narky Blert (talk) 13:10, 6 August 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 that this is really WP:TOOSOON. So Why 16:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Formula E season[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. Sports season that is still two years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: although it is two years away, the arrival of Porsche and Mercedes is significant. Porsche will discontinue the Porsche 919 Hybrid project—which uses hybrid technology—from the World Endurance Championship; with Audi having already left, Toyota is the only manufacturer in the WEC, so the full consequences of Porsche's defection to Formula E remain to be seen. Likewise, Mercedes compete in Formula 1, which also uses hybrid technology, and while they are committed to the series (for now), their announcement comes at a time when Formula 1 is negotiating the 2021 engine regulations. All of this has triggered a wider discussion about what the future of motorsport is going to look like as Formula E is becoming manufacters' preferred test bed, especially in light of announcements from the French and British governments that they will ban cars with combustion engines in the next few decades. The bottom line is that while it might be very early to create the article, it's incredibly significant in the context of global motorsport. As a precedent, the 2014 Formula One season article was created two years in advance of the season as the regulation changes that were introduced for 2014 were a massive overhaul of the engine formula. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Whatever User:Prisonermonkeys is talking about can be discussed on Formula E for now. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if you're not going to bother reading my comment and instead dismiss it as "whatever", why are you taking part in this discussion? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some may say that it would be too soon and immientaly say delete but with the mention of Porsche and Mercedes coming in, this could easily change the tides of Formula E. So I am going to side with User:Prisonermonkeys on this one. Matt294069 is coming 02:18, 12 August 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Austin (writer)[edit]

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

I created the article in 2006 and it survived an AFD the same year. Standards can change over time, and I do not feel that the subject satisfies WP:BIO She has worked as a journalist and has published things here and there, but what is needed are articles ABOUT her, not just BY her. Edison (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edison, I think you were right the first time. I ran news archive searches, she did have a newspaper column. And a book that got a number of reviews. Some writing prizes. I think there's enough out there to create an article, (and I do give her credit not not editing her own page.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 5 August 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mouchette.org[edit]

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

An article about an artist and their website. Other than self-sourced material and creator-supplied bios, sources are a few (mostly dead) blogs and a couple of paragraphs in books. While there is evidence that this artist has exhibited, the coverage falls very far short of "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", or the other criteria described at WP:ARTIST. The site itself doesn't pass WP:WEB. I don't believe there's any credible evidence that the general standard of WP:GNG, that is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - what we have is trivial coverage, unreliable sources, and the subject as the source. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article hasn't been substantially updated in several years, but there is more coverage in recent material - Girlhood and the Plastic Image by Heather Warren-Crow (Dartmouth College Press, 2014) in particular[10]. Also[11][12] and more testifying to the importance of the work as an innovative work of art. It has also been exhibited by one of the world's most prestigious modern art museums, the Stedelijk.[13] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 5 August 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. So Why 16:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Here (film)[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG, and it certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided more notability could be established.TH1980 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A short film by a student filmmaker usually means "non notable" and this is the case here. It's not clear what teh above "weak keep" vote is based on. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 13 August 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 Wyoming Business Council. Anything to merge can be taken from the history. So Why 16:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming Small Business Development Center[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wyoming Business Council, if sources can be found to substantiate the claimed relationship. bd2412 T 00:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there's so little there. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 8 August 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. soft deletion per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Majid Rasheed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seems to pass WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 5 August 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 keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube fame[edit]

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

sigh (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:43, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Petersen[edit]

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

non-notable individual Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as per nom. If there's a case that the subject's work "Torrey Pines" is notable, I'll reconsider. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:01, 6 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Heart Breaks[edit]

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

not a particularly notable group Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:19, 5 August 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. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 15:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Famous Entrepreneurs Series[edit]

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

Unlikely this was ever more than locally notable, and based on the home page, www.fescny.org/, the last event was in 2013. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Edwardx (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. WP:NORG fail, created by a SPA (Special:Contributions/CENTRP), no sources and 100% promo content. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 6 August 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) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Kimlin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing in Allan Cup Hockey does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:30, 9 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eircom Spiders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Golden Spider Awards

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

Kept at AfD in 2008 and PRODed recently by Jytdog after it came to light that the article creator was part of a paid editing sock farm. The issue here is that this is a non-notable award stub that exists to promote the subject and that it should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per BEFORE one sees nominees and recipients saying "i won a spider!" and that is about it. non-notable thing that happens in the internet echosphere. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As old as the Webby Awards, and demonstrably the most notable Internet-related awards in Ireland. Have added a couple more sources and renamed the article to the correct current title of eir Spiders. --Kwekubo (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

addition of the following to the article is unacceptable. The quote is a) from a puff piece article and b) said by a guy who is selling how great his company is; and c) even on the surface is promotional as hell Hailed as "the Oscars of the Irish web and online world" (ref) "Oscar of X" and "nobel of X " is classic promotional hype. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Personally I abhor undisclosed COI editing, paid editing, and sock farm editing behaviours. However, its unclear to me if that's the rationale for the nomination - or if there are other material concerns with the subject itself (or content itself) that would directly meet deletion criteria. For myself, I see two discussion points in the AfD nom. That the creator was a jerk, and that the content is somewhat promotional. The first point I won't disagree with - but that doesn't meet our expectations for AfD criteria. The second point is perhaps also worth considering - but wouldn't normally meet the AfD criteria alone (Except of course where, once all the promo is addressed, no material content then remains). For myself there would seem to be sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. I'm not aware of specific notability criteria for awards. Guliolopez (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the basis of the nomination is that this fails N (and the reason why it was here at all was to promote it; that is relevant but not the core issue). Handwavy claims that there are enough independent, reliable sources with significant discussion of a subject, are not a valid basis for a keep !vote. Would you please present these independent, reliable sources with significant discussion that you believe exist? As I said I looked and I just found non-independent echochamber stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. To bolster my (apparently) "handwavy claims" that GNG is established, I would note that - yes - of the thousands of non-news results (and hundreds of news results) that return in a quick WP:GOOGLETEST, a high percentage are of the "we won an award - aren't we great" press-release variety.[14][15][16] Of these however, I would note that quite a few of these examples are from non-primary sources, which are otherwise typically reliable, hard-copy print media, with at least a national reach, and therefore at least partially contributory to the notability of the awards themselves. Beyond a limited web-only "echochamber" sphere.[17][18][19][20] I would also note that there is at least a reasonable amount of coverage of the awards themselves in similar outlets.[21][22][23][24][25] While at least some of this coverage might fall into the "republished-press-release-as-journalism" category, there is enough of it to meet my understanding of GNG. My contribution/recommendation hasn't changed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and for linking to the old AfD! I'll apologize for my short nominating statement: I thought this would be a relatively non-controversial deletion that was procedurally declined for PROD because of a 9 year old AfD when our standards were lower.

The sources you provided don't meet my understanding of the GNG because they are either coverage of the recipients, not in reliable sources (business journals rarely count for notability), or read like recycled press releases. I still haven't seen substantial coverage in independent reliable sourcing. If this is notable, which I don't think it is, it is at most borderline in which case WP:PROMO does become a factor in whether we keep or delete, and tips the balance here to deletion. Thanks again :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. RE: 'Link to old AfD' - you are very welcome. RE: 'Didn't expand on AfD criteria as though it'd be non-controversial' - OK, that's likely fair. RE: 'Some sources are coverage of recipients' - per my note above, I don't disagree; However the volume of this type of coverage suggests the awards hold some cachet (if not broader notability). RE: 'Some sources are barely changed press-releases' - I'd highlighted the same myself. However, I would note that most "non-negative" coverage of companies and related entities falls into this category in one way or another. And again, the volume, breadth and outlets picking-up these pieces represents non-trivial coverage IMO. In any event, of the many hundreds of AfDs I've contributed to over the years, I've probably leaned significantly more towards deletion than towards keep. As such I'd normally be the first to cry NN/COI/GNG/PROMO/SPAMO where I see it. In this case, I'm just not seeing it. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article created for promotional purposes & the award itself looks to be a vanity award also created for promotional purposes. So win-win :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 10 August 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Skye[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. Non-noteable mixed-used development project that is still under way. No signs of notable coverage of the project during the first few phases of the project. Comatmebro (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add the following to the AfD if I may Gbawden (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. scope_creep (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt at showing notability has been made. Kleuske (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom Gbawden (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (all three articles) No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Edwardx (talk) 15:27, 12 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Schuman[edit]

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

Biography, resting on IMDb and one single piece of reliable source coverage, of a film and television actor known only for bit parts -- the roles posited in the introduction as his best known were as "Blake's valet", "Old Janitor" and "Elderly S&M Enthusiast", not as named characters; the only other role listed in his filmography here was a single episode of a sitcom; and while IMDb lists other roles, none of them are any closer to being "major" roles for the purposes of passing WP:NACTOR (and IMDb isn't considered a reliable source anyway, as its content is user-generated and can contain uncaught errors.) As always, every actor who existed is not handed an automatic free notability pass just for having had roles -- he needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to actually pass an NACTOR criterion, but nothing written or sourced here accomplishes that at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:28, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Folu Agoi[edit]

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

a non-notable writer who fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR due to lack of reliable independent coverage. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:28, 5 August 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) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UST Student Organizations Coordinating Council[edit]

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

The article is merely a collection of tables which document miscellaneous statistics about the council and doesn't convey why it its organisational notability. DrStrauss talk 12:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A total of two hits in Google News in a regional paper's website and not much else in any way indicating notability. I redirected this on this basis but was reverted by the main author today. In my opinion, this is a delete. It might be reasonable to delete and redirect to the article on the school. --Izno (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete per nom and as a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY too, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be a dumping of all available information on a subject, but a summary of verifiable information. We're here to be an encyclopedia, not to indiscriminately list every single club that exist right now on campus. 5 years from now, that list will change. We are not a campus directory. Nobody cares who the student "VP for Service Assurance" was in 2014. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Does this entity exist? Sure. Does it warrant an encyclopedia article? No. Notability outside of UST is almost completely absent, failing WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.PRehse (talk) 17:50, 5 August 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) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mbreh[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, unable to determine notability, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article lacks context. I'd suggest speedy delete under criterion A1. PK T(alk) 12:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no context, fails WP:GEOLAND, is a dictionary definition contrary to WP:NOTDICT. DrStrauss talk 13:08, 5 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric John Brock[edit]

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

I do not see how this guy passes WP:GNG. It was created by the now-blocked Billy Hathorn, who seemed to work in tandem with some other Shreveportian (?) contributors, eg: see the equally non-notable Sarah Hudson-Pierce. Sitush (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a WP:MEMORIAL for a man who wrote several books about his hometown of Shreveport Louisiana. No WP:RSes used or found, unless obit in the regional daily was written by a journalist; it has all of the hallmarks of a paid-for obit. But even if the obit was written by a Shreveport Times reporer, it's not enough to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 6 August 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. multi-posted spam for the organisation, user now blocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Prashanna Paramahansha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, meets WP:SELFPROMOTE instead. Kleuske (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block author for personation. No attempt made to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:55, 5 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Huber[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets point 2. from WP:NHOCKEY Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant by playing in NZIHL and Australian Ice Hockey League as well as playing for New Zealand National Team even if it wasn't in the top pool for World Championship, I think between the two things it is enough for him to have a page. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 01:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. The New Zealand League and the Australian League is not considered a professional league of the caliber to satisfy point 2 (see WP:NHOCKEY/LA; "highest level of competition extant" means in the world, not in a country). Also, the consensus has long been established that it has to be in the top level for the World Championship to satisfy point 6 (which NHOCKEY explicitly states). Ravendrop 06:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and the accomplishments to meet WP:NHOCKEY. It's been stated many times that appearing at the lower tiers of the IIHF championships is insufficient to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of the significant coverage to pass GNG, which must be met for an article, especially one on a living person, to be kept. That said the above debunking of the claim he meets the notability guidelines for hockey are persuasive. The notability guidelines for all sports are arguably over broad. The notion that an American football player can be considered notable for playing just a few minutes in the NFL is absurd. That we give the same defference to players in the Arena Football League is just not justifiable at all. However when we have individuals that do not even meet these very low standards, we need to delete the articles expeditiously.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY (Ravendrop's explanations being accurate), no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY as they did not play in a league that meets the second criteria. Also I can find nothing that shows they meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 8 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Easterbrook[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets point 2. from WP:NHOCKEY Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant by playing in NZIHL and Australian Ice Hockey League as well as playing for New Zealand National Team even if it wasn't in the top pool for World Championship, I think between the two things it is enough for him to have a page. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 01:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. The New Zealand League and the Australian League is not considered a professional league of the caliber to satisfy point 2 (see WP:NHOCKEY/LA; "highest level of competition extant" means in the world, not in a country). Also, the consensus has long been established that it has to be in the top level for the World Championship to satisfy point 6 (which NHOCKEY explicitly states). Ravendrop 06:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Low level IIHF appearances do not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY (Ravendrop's contentions being accurate), no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 12:44, 11 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Parry (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets point 2. from WP:NHOCKEY Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant by playing in NZIHL and Australian Ice Hockey League as well as playing for New Zealand National Team even if it wasn't in the top pool for World Championship, I think between the two things it is enough for him to have a page. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 01:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. The New Zealand League nor the Australian League is not considered a professional league of the caliber to satisfy point 2 (see WP:NHOCKEY/LA; "highest level of competition extant" means in the world, not in a country). Also, the consensus has long been established that it has to be in the top level for the World Championship to satisfy point 6 (which NHOCKEY explicitly states). Ravendrop 06:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY (Ravensdrop's explanation being accurate), no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY as they did not play in a league that meets the second criteria. Also I can find nothing that shows they meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 9 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Humphries[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McDowell[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tserenbaljir Baatarkhuu[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:59, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Belo[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:59, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Amromin[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:59, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeni Kniter[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:59, 5 August 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) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Djilali Hamri[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: This article has been previously proposed for deletion, so WP:NOQUORUM does not apply. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and also fails to meet the critieria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some routine coverage under the alternate spelling "Gilles Hamri", however nothing significant. Additionally, the article is misleading about the level he played at, which appears to have been Div. 3 and 4 which is amateur.18abruce (talk) 16:40, 8 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Mikhailovich Lebedev[edit]

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

Non-notable character in a non-notable fictional book (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treason For My Daily Bread). This article - as well as the articles about the book and the book's author - cites various unreliable fringe sources as evidence that they were fooled by the premise of the story. I do not see any significant coverage in reliable sources about this character. Location (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability independent of the book Treason For My Daily Bread (if for some reason the article on the book is kept, this title can be redirected there if desired). Deli nk (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Clayworth[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarred Seymour[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely fails WP:NHOCKEY. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gough (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NHOCKEY LibStar (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee McLauchlan[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lack of significant independent coverage and he fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY since his appearances at the world championships were not at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Austin McKenzie[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player and fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Bashir Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and much harder WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on Googling i find press coverage on the subject but because of namesake.. this one doesn't seems to meeting WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN aside. --Saqib (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:57, 5 August 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) 08:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong (R3hab and KSHMR song)[edit]

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

No significant indication of notability. We Got This Covered is a musical blog, The Bangin Beats isn't notable nor reliable either, hence fails WP:NSONG. Article is also unlikely to grow beyond stub class considering there's very little information on the Internet. Hayman30 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Billboard source, the other sources and the chart are more than enough to establish notability. Unlike what the nominator said, those sources are likely to be reliable since they've been established for years, have their own staff crew and there hasn't been a bad review of these sites. Plus, no user generated content. It can also grow beyond a stub since the content added on the article is limited and there are other sources that haven't been checked yet. - TheMagnificentist 10:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard source alone and singe chart position does not establish notability, despite it being a notable and reliable source. To quote WP:NSONG, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". We Got This Covered is a blog, which is considered as a trivial source. Bangin Beats is another dodgy-looking music portal, and the provided article isn't even related to the subject, it's discussing another song. With these two excluded, there's only the Billboard source left, and I wouldn't say that it's enough considering the song has not charted outside Belgium. Pretty sure you found all these sources with a Google News search, and that's basically all sources available, hence it's very unlikely that the article could grow beyond stub class. Thus, WP:NSONG has not been met. Hayman30 (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Got This Covered is an online entertainment website 'covering the world of film, gaming and television', not a blog. I just added another source from EDM Sauce, an established source for EDM since 2012. These sources and the chart are obvious "significant indication of notability." - TheMagnificentist 12:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Got This Covered is a blog as they stated themselves, they started as a blog, and they're still a blog to date. They rebranded and got their own domain, but their nature has not been changed. Again, only one chart position does not establish notability, to quote WP:NSONG, "1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts," that's why we need more sources. With only two valid sources I wouldn't consider the song as notable. Hayman30 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were a blog, now they're not. "We need more sources", your opinion. I think the existing sources are fine and the chart legitimizes the notability. - TheMagnificentist 13:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They were a blog, now they're not." Prove it. No idea why you'd consider a song that has only charted in a single region as notable. Current sources are not fine, one is a blog source and the other is unrelated. "Multiple sources" doesn't necessarily mean two sources only, considering the song has only charted in Belgium, more sources are needed, and of course that's just my opinion. I think we should just stop here and wait for other's comments as this is just a back-and-fourth situation when we already know each other's stance. Hayman30 (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rather merge to album if there is one (?) or artist. There are four or five single stubs - just looked at one which charted 160 in France, which deserve mentions in artist article, but are not notable Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Singles In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per In ictu oculi — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:56, 5 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pontiac Land Group[edit]

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

Non-notable real estate developer lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. If this were a person it would be a resume.reddogsix (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:52, 5 August 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) 08:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylan Anlar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's written that Anlar played for a club in the highest level of an ice hockey league in Turkey. If that's the case, the article meets WP:NHOCKEY. - TheMagnificentist 05:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question And which criterion does that fulfill? None of them in hockey, you must be thinking of a different sport.18abruce (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NHOCKEY guidelines point to this list to enumerate the "top league" criterion, and there's nothing in relation to Turkey there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays in the top Turkish league. the criteria states "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant". CeeGee 05:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Turkish league is not listed here [26] as being part of that list. So therefore the player fails notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily the ultimate notability checklist for ice hockey. The list was mostly written by a regular user "Ravenswing", probably based on their personal interest in the sport. — TheMagnificentist 14:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the list was probably written "based on their personal interest in the sport" Are you accusing @Ravenswing: of bad faith? Joeykai (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes, indeed, I would not have initiated that list if I had no personal interest in the sport, and no one would've taken the effort seriously if I hadn't spent a decade on Wikipedia demonstrating that I knew what I was talking about. Would you rather such a list be created by someone with neither interest in, nor knowledge of, ice hockey? Do you have such interest or expertise yourself? If there is a league notability list you feel is more accurate, would you link to it, please, and explain why you feel it's more accurate?

The reason, by the bye, for the phrasing of Criterion #2 is twofold. First off, as happened with many team sports, ice hockey's top leagues predated the era of professional sports, and the first fully professional leagues didn't appear until the 20th century. Secondly, Iron Curtain nations such as the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia did not permit "professional" leagues to exist, yet maintained high levels of play through their official "amateur" leagues. Criterion #2 was never meant to suggest (and indeed does not) the patently absurd premise that amateur level play is presumptively notable worldwide. Ravenswing 22:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in the top-level national league in his country. Essays aren't authoritative and may be incomplete in terms of leagues possible. Guidelines trump them. Smartyllama (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the guidelines do not support this players inclusion, "top-level national national league in his country is not there", please take time to read the guidelines before basing your argument on them.18abruce (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 to 18abruce. Beyond that, are you asserting that list is incomplete? If so, upon what basis? Are you asserting that the Turkish hockey league generates so much media attention that every one of its players is automatically notable? If so, where is your evidence of this? Ravenswing 22:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And GNG trumps any sports-specific guideline (which were written with the intent that any that meet the SSG would also likely meet GNG. Finding some reliable independent sources would be the only way forward for this article (as well as building a case into adding any Turkish leagues to the SSG). Yosemiter (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheMagnificentist. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "top-level national league in his country" is irrelevant and not included in any criteria. To be a "top league" it has to demonstate that even a nominal player receives enough coverage to satisfy GNG. How can experienced editors vote keep for a criteria that is not included in WP:NHOCKEY. The accompanying list provided is a detailed list, tested through consensus, that illustrates which leagues we should expect players to pass GNG. The Turkish league clearly is not among those we would expect that. It still remains possible that this player passes GNG, but I see no evidence of this.18abruce (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I completely agree that "top-level national league in his country" is irrelevant, not included in any hockey-related notability criteria on Wikipedia, and any assertion to the contrary is sheer invention on the part of any editor making it. The reason we do have a supporting list of leagues which meet the criteria (something done by the other team-related sports Wikiprojects) is the painfully obvious fact that some levels of sport are more noteworthy than others. The reason we don't (and never have) asserted that the topmost league in any given nation-state confers presumptive notability on everyone is the equally painfully obvious fact that it would grant the same presumptive notability to beer league players in Peru or San Marino who've played a minute of action as to NHL or KHL players who've played five hundred games, an absurdity on any level. This particular player meets no notability criterion, nor has evidence he meets the GNG been proffered. Ravenswing 22:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nowhere does NHOCKEY mention "in a country" so he fails #1. He fails #2 because there is nothing that bars him from playing a higher professional league.Since this person fails NHOCKEY, he must stand or fall on GNG, and unless someone can find some solid articles, he fails. Yosemiter (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY as NHOCKEY specifically refers to the list of leagues which meat each criteria. Criteria #2 refers to leagues which existed prior to the sport becoming professional. But regardless of that, it fails GNG which trumps NHOCKEY anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing in the top Turkish hockey league does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, nor does appearing in lower level tiers of the IIHF championships. There's also no indication that he has the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Playing in Turkey's top league establishes no credibility for inclusion. Clear WP:GNG failure as well. Deadman137 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahsum Akkuş[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He plays in the top Turkish league. the criteria states "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant". CeeGee 05:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Turkish league is not listed here [27] as being part of that list. So therefore the player fails notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many nearby higher profile professional leagues for this player to play in, so they in no way pass NHOCKEY. I don't know for absolute certain that turkish sources would not pass GNG, but cannot find anything myself.18abruce (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. As far as CeeGee's claim goes, that's not only completely inaccurate, the premise is flatout absurd; that would inevitably lead to beer leaguers in Peru or Nauru claiming presumptive notability. Criterion #2 pertains to two specific periods in hockey history: the pre-professional days of the 19th century Canadian top leagues, and the Cold War-era "amateur" leagues of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, where professional leagues were banned and the players not allowed to go elsewhere. NHOCKEY does not, and never has, presumed that amateur players all around the world are notable. Ravenswing 14:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY as they did not play in a league that meets the second criteria. Also I can find nothing that shows they meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage does not appear to meet WP:GNG and no indication of meeting any criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 23:50, 9 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batuhan Akay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He plays in the top Turkish league. the criteria states "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant". CeeGee 05:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Turkish league is not listed here [28] as being part of that list. So therefore the player fails notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The league he played in does not grant automatic notability, and coverage of him is not high enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY, there is no impediment to him playing in a higher profile league if he was good enough so being in the top Turkish league is irrelevant. Needs to be some kind of effort to prove GNG, I can't find it.18abruce (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. As far as CeeGee's claim goes, that's not only completely inaccurate, the premise is flatout absurd; that would inevitably lead to beer leaguers in Peru or Nauru claiming presumptive notability. Criterion #2 pertains to two specific periods in hockey history: the pre-professional days of the 19th century Canadian top leagues, and the Cold War-era "amateur" leagues of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, where professional leagues were banned and the players not allowed to go elsewhere. NHOCKEY does not, and never has, presumed that amateur players all around the world are notable. Ravenswing 14:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY as they did not play in a league that meets the second criteria. Also I can find nothing that shows they meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 8 August 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Leader (novel)[edit]

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

Article is a plot summary without stated sources apart from the book itself and therefore is original research. Cannot find any reviews. Happy to withdraw this nomination if commentary or reviews supporting the text are found. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative History in general and Alternative History featuring a victory (or near-victory, in this case) of the Nazis and their allies is a recognized area of interest for Wikipedia. There is not only a general page on this subject [29], but numerous individual pages on specific works. his specific book has a new approach, which was not taken by earlier writers - despite this being an often repeated subject. The page can be of use to people who are interested in this field and look for information on Wikipedia - and there are many such. Technically, it might be possible to say that offering a summary of a book's plot by using the book itself as a source would constitute "original research". But if this was enforced strictly, I think there are tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages which will have to be removed, including the pages of many classical works of literature. I think that the absence of commentary or reviews is grounds for demanding an improvement of the page - not for deleting it. Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? We only keep separate articles when the topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) "demand an improvement" from whom with what sources? Burden of verifiability is on the editor who created the content. "there are tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages which will have to be removed" Yes czar 03:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument offered is that writing about a book's plot based on the book itself is "Original Research". I think this is completley pedantic. As I said, you very often find pages about books - including major masterpieces of world literature - where the summary of the plot was made from the book itself. So all these pages on masterpieces of world literature should be removed as "original research"?Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nom's comment on original research reflects a WP policy—it's fine to use the source itself for descriptive plot summary (at least as of now), but if that's all that exists on the page, then there are no reliable, secondary sources with which to write an article. czar 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need a reliable source to have noticed and written in depth about the book. It's not enough for you to have read it and be able to summarise it. Please familiarise yourself with our policies. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations to reliable sources are added to the article before the expiration of this discussion. bd2412 T 00:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's been mentioned that there are other "great works" that don't have reliable sources but as per Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Citations those articles should also be here for review unless there was some consensus using WP:IAR, which I'm sure has happened at one point. - Pmedema (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being unsourced. Oddly, I was trying to remember the title of this book a few days ago, and here it is. The lack of reliable sources both here and elsewhere suggests that it's one of the myriad novels which don't merit their own articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews from reliable sources, which is surprising as WorldCat shows 7 editions held by around 145 libraries, maybe a redirect from the disambiguation page to the author? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Checked the physical volumes of Book Review Index 2003 and 2004: nada. A redirect to the author's article is sensible, but it's fine to delete first. czar 19:15, 12 August 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Roberts (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and fails to meet any criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 01:28, 5 August 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.