Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 July	29 July >

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) 19:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Politi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist, "referenced" only to her deadlinked staff profile on the website of a former employer and written like a thinly veiled rewrite of it rather than a proper encyclopedia article. As always, journalists are not granted an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but must be reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient media coverage to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no reliable sources in the article and a Google search suggests there may be none. No particular claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deete: no independent, reliable sources available. DrStrauss talk 12:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable broadcast news journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 4 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) 19:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan (unfinished film)[edit]

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

Zero sources in the article, and I didn't find any evidence that this passes WP:GNG. Per WP:NFF, we don't usually retain articles on unfinished films. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while uncreated films can be notable, there is nothing showing that this one is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON, could be notable once released. DrStrauss talk 12:15, 3 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 for failure of GNG. I have redirected the title to the article on the film that mentions the subject as director. bd2412 T 02:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rocca[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIO with no links other than IMDB page of single student film that only played festivals. Unregistered IP removed speedy. Clearly promotional, as challenge to speedy notes it's tied to his film's page. Little sign of meeting WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG/PROMO/Etc. South Nashua (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:34, 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) 19:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holocene Impact Working Group[edit]

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

There is zero coverage of this group as an entity, as opposed to their (fringe) research. This isn't surprising; we rarely (if ever?) have articles on individual labs or research groups. – Joe (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting work, but the group as an entity has not at this point received anything beyond passing/incidental mention in literature (as one does when stating affiliation to some research collective). Based on current practice, a research group needs to receive quite some coverage in its own right before it merits a standalone article. I suggest the group's findings are better suited to the individual topic articles (megatsunami, impact event), or the articles on individual researchers, which exist for a couple of the members. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 28 July 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) 19:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reimage[edit]

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

At WP:OTRS ticket:2017072510021011 a user writes in saying that this product is a hoax or scam. They cite Belgian Federal Police as a source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It certainly reads like something written by the company. PC World liked it (in 2011) but on the web there are many people telling how to get rid of it, so I don't know if it is legitimate or not. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awcleaner by MalwareBytes also thinks that it is malware. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an egregiously low-quality article; also promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:00, 31 July 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. bd2412 T 02:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Tap10[edit]

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

I don't believe this person is notable, per either WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. Seagull123 Φ 20:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Only finding passing mentions in RS, such as [1]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure of GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:05, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolette McKeown[edit]

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

Fails WP:CELEBRITY. Must have significant roles in multiple notable films. Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator; my sweeps did not find much but I'll follow this page, and if new sources turn up, I can change my mind.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination; I guess she isn't considered to be very notable. She has slandered me personally too, but that's not relevant here so I won't say what she did or didn't do. She's not even that famous anyway.PeterMan844 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeterMan844, accusing someone of slander can itself be considered slander on this project, and it is, in any event, utterly irrelevant to the discussion of this content. I'm not sure if it's more appropriate at this point to ask you to blank that comment, per our behavioural policies, or to leave it, as removing it might be seen by some to obscure your bias here, but one thing I will ask you to do for certain is to avoid making such accusations about others in the future. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless appropriate sourcing can be found; at present the article is completely "sourced" by social media accounts, promotional agency/career page links, and blog entries--all of them WP:PRIMARY and connected to the subject. None of them are in so much as the same galaxy as our WP:reliable source standards when it comes to notability, and most of them source trivial content ('she has a bunny named Dexter and a hamster named Bunny') that would strain being considered as WP:DUE and encyclopedic for any BLP, cosplayers included, even if there was a reliable source. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:26, 1 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. Amortias (T)(C) 12:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Peter Sassoon[edit]

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

I am unable to find any information about the existence of this "baronet". The Sassoon family certainly exist, but he's not a part of it. "Peter Sassoon" The only link in the article does not mention any Peter Sassoon. ... discospinster _talk 19:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pure fantasy. The article claims that the alleged Sir Peter owns 43% of HSBC: if true, this would make him one of the richest people in the world, but he has no Google presence, nor does he come up on a Reuters search. The Guardian has mentioned in passing a Peter Sassoon Munns, who has married into the famous family, but none of the other details match up. I have added Template:Hoax to the article, because of the BLP implications for Mr Sassoon Munns and his relatives. Matt's talk 21:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is obviously a hoax article. CataracticPlanets (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is an obvious hoax. The creator has continued to add "sources" all of which indicate this is not a real person. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:32, 29 July 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) 19:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Park Rd[edit]

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

Not notable Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. This is not notable.TH1980 (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—not a state-maintained highway and fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 22:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable; not a state-maintained road, either. Incorrectly named (abbreviation in name). Incorrect infobox, too. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons. –Fredddie ™ 21:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A test edit, perhaps? Fails GNG... Carrite (talk) 15:34, 4 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. bd2412 T 02:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godkiller[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find sources to verify notability, particularly WP:GNG. All sources given are primary, which can't be used to determine notability. I'm also including the band's albums for completeness. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the lack of sourcing to support notability under either WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC, the entire article seems to be a giant WP:COATRACK to provide the unheard-of subject with a forum to plead with people not to buy the bootleg CDs of his work that he claims are being sold... This isn't Cragislist or an indie music forum and that is not appropriate purpose for a Wikipedia article, obviously. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Snow Rise. Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:06, 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. Consensus is that being deputy leader of a political is not enough for WP:NPOL -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Lund[edit]

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

Lund is the deputy leader of the Green Party of Prince Edward Island. This isn't an inherently notable position - AFAIK, we usually only have articles on Canadian deputy leaders if they merit one through some external notability or through holding an elected office. Neither of these applies to Lund. WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and MOS:CA#Politics. Madg2011 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deputy leader of a provincial party that both holds one seat and is polling higher than the NDP [2] and tied with the PC's in another poll. [3] Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that the GPPEI is notable. That notability just doesn't automatically extend to a deputy leader who's never held elected office. Lund doesn't meet GNG or any of the three guidelines I linked above. Madg2011 (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES - "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success.". You can't have the word deputy leader without the word leader. She's still a leader of the party, and thus notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, leaders of minor parties are fair game, but "deputy leader" is a position defined by internal party policy, not by any electoral agency. It doesn't confer the same notability. Madg2011 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion does not include deputy leaders — it's for the alpha leader only, and not for the deputies. And even then, the leader still has to actually pass WP:GNG as the subject of media coverage about their work in that role — the person does not get an automatic "no valid sources required" inclusion freebie just for the fact of being a party leader. If the depth and breadth of media coverage simply isn't there, and thus a standalone article has to rely on primary sources rather than reliable ones, then the leader does not get a standalone BLP separate from having their name mentioned in the article on the party. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Me-123567-Me (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being deputy leader of a political party is enough for a Wikipedia article if the person can be sourced to enough media coverage about her to pass WP:GNG for it — but being deputy leader of a political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL freebie just because the person exists, and the sourcing present here (which is 5/7 primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and 2/7 routine coverage of a by-election that she ran in, which would still have existed whether she was a candidate or not because such coverage of by-elections always exists) is not enough to get her past GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as noted by Bearcat, she hasn't won a seat yet and as "deputy leader" of the PEI Greens, she doesn't meet the bar for WP:NPOL. PK T(alk) 14:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: deputy leader of a political party is not one of the criteria for inclusion per WP:NPOL. Little sustained coverage. DrStrauss talk 13:11, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natan Nunes[edit]

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

Seems to be notable only for social media presence. Beyond that, fails WP:NPERSON. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no third-party sources, only citation is his own Instagram. DrStrauss talk 13:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, no notability established. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DrStrauss. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 19:46, 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 No consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Andaya[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Searches turned up virtually nothing to suggest that she passes WP:GNG. A couple of trivial mention in News, and a few more trivial mentions in Books. A comment was made on the talk page making the argument that she passes NSCHOLAR, but with a high citation count of 32, she doesn't appear to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is an associate professor with a few moderately cited papers and some book awards. As her career progresses she may well make a larger impact in her field, but it is too soon for a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma (talk • contribs)
Keep she passes CREATIVE for attention given to her work in the form of reviews. I added 2 reviews to articles I have access to, but there are others. Here is the list of journals reviewing her work (some need subscriptions & EBSCO links are often hard to view, let me know if you need help): 1) New West Indian Guide, 2) Journal of Pan African Studies, 3) Latin American Politics and Society 4) Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society and 5) American Ethnologist. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:NSCHOLAR per nom. It doesn't seems right to judge the notability different scholars by different standards based on how they choose to publish their work (e.g. in book form vs. peer reviewed papers). Seems like a fairly average anthropologist professor. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our deletion and editing policies. The subject's notability and sourcing also seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass notability criteria. I'm not in the business of stretching our criteria beyond all reason to satisfy misplaced inclusionism. Like most people, there won't be enough written about the subject until 100 years hence, which is honestly more fair than what we're attempting right now. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof as GS cites are far too small for high-cited field of pop-pschology WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - This Associate Professor passes both WP:NSCHOLAR and WP:CREATIVE. Netherzone (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- published at least one book with a Uni publisher:

CONCEIVING CUBA: REPRODUCTION, WOMEN, AND THE STATE IN THE POST-SOVIET ERA, by Elise Andaya (Rutgers University Press; 192 pages; $80 hardcover, $26.95 paperback). Examines new constraints on women considering motherhood given Cuba's economic troubles in the post-Soviet period.

With the additional sources above, it's a Keep for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff does not contribute to notability. Only 17 sources have cited the book. Usually one starts looking for for 1000 cites WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, not seeing notability here for a stand alone article. Average associate professor at this point as presented. Kierzek (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article reveals that she has published one monograph, no doubt a tidied up version of her doctoral thesis. I do not think that ought to be enough to pass SCHOLAR. She seems currently to be a young lecturer. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With a reminder that WP:NSCHOLAR is not the only applicable policy and that she might be worthy of inclusion if WP:NCREATIVE, WP:BASIC or WP:GNG are met. Unfortunately, the discussion so far has been long but largely without substance. Please remember that just saying "Fails X" or "Passes Y" is not helpful without explanation why this is the case. Some discussion of the sources Meganlibrarygirl mentioned might also be helpful to determine the subject's notability. No point in closing this as "no consensus" at this time though if further discussion might actually yield a definitive outcome, so relisting it is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An average Associate Professor, without the academic rank, or quantity and quality of publications expected in comparison to WP:NSCHOLAR. Her CV only lists THREE publications in peer-reviewed journals. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO either, at least at this career stage, ten years after getting the PhD. . Not everyone who gets a PhD and lands a job at a university is automatically entitled to a bio article in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dleete Per previous by Edison. Has not received significant coverage from third party sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with the reviews listed by Megalibrarygirl, Andaya's book Conceiving Cuba meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG so is entitled to a wikiarticle, so do we want one on the author and one on the book, an article on the book with a paragraph about the author, or an article about the author which, at the moment, is mainly about the book? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Your assertion goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. If Conceiving Cuba were notable you could write an article about that and include something about the author. Per WP:NAUTHOR, this subject is not "entitled" to an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, WP:NBOOK - "1.The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3]", with the reviews listed above, Conceiving Cuba meets this so an article can be written about it, oops, i meant WP:AUTHOR - "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", is a book that a wikiarticle can be written about a "well-known work"? thus meeting author?, btw WorldCat shows it being held by around 740 libraries, another tick in the "well-known work" box, so author/creative may be met. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When we're talking about an author creating a well-known work, we're talking about William Shakespeare creating Hamlet, and a work like Hamlet and His Problems analyzing that play is notable, itself. Even if no one ever wrote about Shakespeare he would be notable for his works receiving notable examination; at least that's how I read it. As regarding libraries holding copies, WP:BKTS says specifically "meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable". You could make a case that the book is notable because of independent reviews but that's not enough to make the book's author notable. If we went by your standard then every book that got three or four reviews would be notable as would that book's author, which is ludicrous. Regardless, there's no determination that the book is notable because the article doesn't exist and it might get deleted if it did. Again, what's the rush? We don't need articles about living authors. We could write a much better, more responsible article once they're dead. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, hang on, there should only be wikiarticles on books that are of the calibre of Hamlet or that analyze/critique such books, so at the most a couple of hundred articles and on authors only when they are dead, who are the calibre of Shakespeare, so another 50-100? mmmm .... what about people in other fields? academics, members of the military, artists? are they also only worthy of a wikiarticle when they are dead? but then looking at some of your article creations ie. Robin Fontes, Marina Amaral, Seymour Van Gundy, you don't seem to think so. ps. i didn't say that library holdings made a book notable only that it might show that it is well known, anyway, i'm sure you must have meant to preface your above response with a {{sarcasm}} or end it with a

ps. its not my standard about 3 or 4 reviews, its what nbook (actually 2 or more:)) states. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman I don't see any reason not to include an individual who has received several reviews from reliable sources in our Encyclopedia. There are other types of criteria inclusion that are an even lower bar and no one has problems with those in different areas, such as sports. It's not like we are going to "run out of room" on the encyclopedia. The argument that it "waters down" the credibility of Wikipedia to include individuals like the subject of this article are also not valid. If someone's work is reviewed through reliable sources, and in this case, scholarly journals, they are not just nobodies. These are not easy accomplishments. I'm a librarian and I can tell you that not every book gets reviewed: only books that are significant do. The subject of this article passes CREATIVE, as I and Coolabahapple have pointed out. If you don't like the inclusion criteria of CREATIVE or AUTHOR, and you feel it needs to be so strict that only authors of Shakespeare's caliber can pass it, then we need to talk about that in a different venue. Until then, the fact is that this person has received notice of their work in multiple reliable sources. This is significant. If we hold the bar at Shakespeare, almost no author would pass and we would fail at writing an encyclopedia that is useful to all people. In addition, articles about living authors are indeed useful to the general public. We are a creating an encyclopedia that can be edited and updated at any time. There's no reason to wait for a person to be dead to write about them on Wikipedia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me emphasize that I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care. I'm just dispassionately applying the criterion. Yes, I found it silly that WP:NBASE extends to anyone that ever played a single game in KBO League baseball or that WP:NRODEO extends to Hall of Fame Bucking bulls but it's not up to me. If I thought the subject met the criteria, then I'd !vote keep. As I read it, there's a general belief from some that Wikipedia should just have articles on everybody and the fact that a few people reviewed a book (not the author, the book) then somehow the author of that book is notable. I think that idea lives in your imagination, not CREATIVE. I'm not seeing anyone refute my points; I just see this WP:NOTPAPER argument as if we can just cancel WP:N on a whim. I've seen more-powerful editors than either of you more or less say SCHOOLOUTCOMES remained the law of the land even after an RfC explicitly said otherwise. If you want to make the argument, go ahead. Maybe the closing admin will believe you. Show me this author won a Pulitzer Prize or had their life-story turned into a movie, or something. I'm just not seeing it here. It's nothing personal. I'm just frustrated by this apparent disconnect with what the criteria says and what you seem to want it to say. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"more-powerful editors than either of you"?, "SCHOOLOUTCOMES"?, huh? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman I, too am applying notability standards in this discussion and have refuted your points: you just don't agree with my interpretations. I, too am frustrated by readings of notability standards and I bring up NOTPAPER only to gently remind all of us that there is plenty of space on Wikipedia for us to build. You assert that I am "imagining" that this person passes CREATIVE. But CREATIVE says in 4(c): "The person's work (or works) (c) has won significant critical attention." That's what it says, not what I imagined. I'm not making the standards say anything they don't. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those reviews qualify as "significant critical attention". We can disagree. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant publications, notable coverage. The concept of "thousands of citations" is a red herring -- for example, in law, people rarely cite each other's works, they cite legal cases, so a major legal scholar may have dozens, not hundreds of others citing their work. Here, we have awards won, content published, grants awarded, coverage of all of the above. This is more than adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient R/S, over time to establish notability, as shown by reviews provided by Megalibrarygirl and [4], [5], [6]. Totally agree with number of citations not being indicative of weight of publication, as numerous academic studies have proven that it is indeed a red herring.[7], [8] SusunW (talk) 21:06, 30 July 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 WP:G3 -- a hoax based on false references to Malik Riaz. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hammad Riaz[edit]

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

Simply promotional stuff links to Malik Riaz. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any reasonable sources for verification. Mar4d (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this bio claims the subject is founder/chairman of Siemens Pakistan, but the official website of the company say otherwise so this could be hoax? doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited sources doesn't mentions the subject. --Saqib (talk) 18:07, 28 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Minson[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) 10:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 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 17:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as never having played in a top-flight league or competion, fails (per nom), WP:NHOCKEY #1. — fortunavelut luna 17:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails the criteria for inclusion for hockey players. DrStrauss talk 13:12, 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) 19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zulkarnain Zakaria (referee)[edit]

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

Referee, with only references being two 'match reports' where all it does it list his name. In the guidelines for sport notability, I did not see anything about football referees, so going off other guidelines, I see no way he would qualify for wikipedia. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; no non-trivial references and no inherent notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, not received any significant coverage outside of match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 31 July 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 only two arguments to keep are from 1) The creator of the article, who has an extremely narrow editing focus, and 2) a procedural complaint based on an apparently erroneous assumption that WP:BEFORE was satisfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood Records[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There's only one source (the March 2015 voice-tribune piece) that might be reliable that mentions the subject a little and that's still just local coverage. I don't see notability with anything else here. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does not fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. It is moot to question the validity of a news source simply because it is "local". Particularly when the news source is "local" to the country’s 16th-largest metropolis and is in physical print and distribution (https://voice-tribune.com/about-us/where-to-find/) and is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Media in Louisville, Kentucky. Second, the other news pieces (voice-tribune August 2015 and louisvilleky.com. 14 April 2017) demonstrate active and current contributions to the culture of a major city. Third, the connection between this label and the career resurrection of a notable figure (Peter Searcy)--as he is clearly defined through the fact that he has a Wikipedia article--has been firmly proven (popdose.com. 12 June 2017). To say that this subject fails to prove notability is to deny notability of Peter Searcy and the validity of a viable, in-print news source of a major city. Collectively, the sources demonstrate verified activity mentioned by news sources over a period of years proving activity over a span of time WP:SUSTAINED MzViolet84 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MzViolet84: Per WP:LOCAL: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" The fact that the Voice-Tribune isn't itself notable doesn't help. Also, name-dropping is a cognitive bias. Just because the studio/label is somehow involved with a notable artist does not confer notability, per WP:INHERITED. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since notability is not conferred, the statement "x does not confer notability" is a truism. Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCAL is a substandard essay. The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:V, which does not care if the source was published in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania or St. Matthews, Kentucky. WP:V is the applicable standard for AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Voice-Tribune, the claim that it is not notable is an opinion unsupported with evidence, since notability is defined outside of Wikipedia. The nomination has yet to provide the WP:BEFORE evidence for the article nominated, much less the WP:BEFORE for the Voice Tribune. I have personal knowledge of this particular newspaper. It has a long history and to my knowledge it has had and continues to have a good reputation as a general-purpose newspaper. Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Troutman: Referring to an actual current and ongoing business transaction that supports the career of a notable figure is not, by definition, name-dropping (simply naming or alluding to important people and institutions within a conversation) nor is it a cognitive bias when legal documents of contract can be produced supporting this business arrangement that is the very fabric of the business in question. It is a factual and verifiable piece of the current career and legacy of a notable figure and denotes a substantial interaction with this figure who chose to facilitate the dealing of his own choice free will. Just as any independent label, such a Kemosabe Records, mentions artists like Ke$ha in their articles, names are mentioned not to name-drop, but rather to substantiate the very nature of their basic business model. If the logic of a label not mentioning their artists were sound, every record label on Wikipedia should delete all artist rosters and names of associated artists and rely solely on the remaining available information. MzViolet84 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, this is a publisher, so the standard of WP:SUSTAINED must be interpreted to apply to the context, and the context here is a low bar. The absence of WP:BEFORE D1 evidence in the nomination from Google books implies that sources are already available there. Given that the nomination is a notability argument, the nomination has not followed the nomination requirements to make sure that redirect targets are not available for the reliable material, which implies that such targets are available. Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: Do you require me to say that I did, in fact, search for sources before nomination? Can you not assume I would have done such? Have you searched and found any reliable sources? And if the beloved Voice Tribune says this studio was created a scant two years ago, how would the studio pass SUSTAINED? Does this studio exist? Yes. Is that enough for inclusion? No. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states, "We consider evidence..." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no need for me to make a trip to the library when the nomination hasn't provided minimal evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up virtually zero about this company. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't come close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. The Voice-Tribune piece is simply a regurgitated press release (the hint is when an "article" includes stuff like, "for more info call xxx-xxxx" or "here's our website"). And that's the only piece which even comes close. The others are mere mentions, or from unreliable or primary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP due to lack of third-party sources. DrStrauss talk 13:13, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Movement Snowboards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources are provided other than the defunct company's Facebook page, and a search turned up a couple of old blog/forum posts. Even if there are WP:RS in print somewhere out there, the article is unsalvageably unencyclopedic as currently presented. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious attempt to advertise. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: spam, spam, spam. DrStrauss talk 13:15, 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. The only person arguing to keep is a WP:SPA and the creator of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Rusilko[edit]

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

Non-notable resume/advertisement like article lacking substantial, in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" include a lot of single line mentions and such. reddogsix (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, references are not substantive enough. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An International athlete representing the US in worldwide competitions, definitely passes WP:ATH and WP:GNG. The references given are high quality passing WP:RS. Having minor issues should not equate to deletion. PinedPrate (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC) — PinedPrate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage. DrStrauss talk 13:16, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Mikusheva[edit]

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

I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. We usually don't include professors who are not full professors or without named chairs unless there is a specific reason to. agtx 16:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I thought about this for quite some time before creating the article. However, Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria says that academics are considered notable if, "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." By this criteria, Mikusheva DEFINITELY passes the notability test because she won the Elaine Bennett Research Prize, a highly prestigious academic award at the national level. EAWH (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GS h-index of 10 may just pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Truly Weak keep. It's certainly a "by the skin of the teeth" call, but EAWH is correct; the academics guideline is explicit that even that one high profile award is sufficient to establish notability. The Elaine Bennett Research Prize is not the absolute highest of profile awards, but probably sufficient to the "highly prestigious bar". There's the additional h-index evidence suppline by Xxanthippe as well, but as WP:NACADEMIC makes clear, that is the weakest possible evidence for just one prong the notability analysis and is to be treated with skepticism. Still, looking at the entire package of this Harvard-trained MIT faculty member with significant publications in major journals of her field, I have to say she just barely gets through by the smallest possible margin. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:58, 1 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Ife[edit]

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

This is a draft. The text is mostly notes which may be of use to an article creator. It is not an adequate article at the current time. The article should be moved to draft space, possibly with a stub placeholder replacing it.. LukeSurl^{t c} 16:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In that case use a tag that this needs to be cleaned up. Deleting is not the solution here. Gryffindor (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No seeing any obvious or concerning reason to support delete. Ajf773 (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One must concede that the rulers of Ile-Ife, from circa 1200 to nowadays, were not baseball players nor porn actors, nor even alumni of any T.H.E.M. University. But they are notable enough to have their mortuary masks preciously kept in some notable places, the British Museum among them. The proposer should better ask herself why. Moreover, asking for more references seems to be a joke: a large bibliography is already given, and many more references are easy to obtain. Pldx1 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It may need a clean up, but so do many articles. We have an article on every UK peerage, so that I do not see why we should not have one on a ruling cheifdom in what is now Nigeria. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entirely appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the nominator is correct that the article as it stands is not very useful to the vast majority of readers. Srnec (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would second the post by User:Pldx1 concerning other lists in that case. Gryffindor (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'd support keeping this as a pure list article (with no content other than hyperlinks to other WP articles), but I suspect that other editors would object to that. There are only 3 links to rulers of Ife; a more general, Nigeria-wide page is likely sufficient here. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyperlinks to other WP articles ? Could you be more explicit, please ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only Adesoji Aderemi, Olubuse II, and Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi appear to have stand-alone articles. If some of the other rulers mentioned have articles, I would withdraw my delete vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazia Akhter Juthi[edit]

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

Non-notable badminton athlete. Fails notability standards. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meet WP:NBADMINTON #5, WP:ANYBIO. Received the National Sports Awards by the Bangladesh government. Stvbastian (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National champion among other things, clearly notable. PamD 14:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national champion per WP:NBADMINTON. Hmlarson (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets #3 and #5 of NBADMINTON plus won national championship. Donald1659 (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable badminton player, meets GNG per WP:NBADMINTON. Florentyna (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per WP:NBADMINTON. One of 50+ badminton AfDs created by same user. All but this and one other one were created within a span of about half an hour or so and have already been closed as keep with no delete !votes other than nominator. This and the one other open one were created a day later, which is the only reason they are still open. Perhaps this is a matter for WP:ANI at this point as nominator has shown no WP:BEFORE work whatsoever. Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the SNG for badminton players. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Begum[edit]

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

Non-notable badminton athlete. Fails notability standards. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet #3 and 5 WP:NBADMINTON. Won the Bangladesh Int'l in 2002, also the national championships. Stvbastian (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly passes WP:NBADMINTON, but i think her forename needs looking into as some sources have her down as Elina and Elena. Iantheimp (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets #3 and #5 of WP:BADMINTON as per Svtbastian, plus winning the national championship confers notability. Donald1659 (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National champion several times, clearly notable. PamD 14:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NBADMINTON. Hmlarson (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With regard to WP:NBADMINTON #3, there's no obvious reliable source for "Won the Bangladesh Int'l in 2002". If it's a reason that she's notable, the fact should be added to the article, with a citation. With regard to WP:NBADMINTON #5, Bangladesh has never sent an athlete to the Olympics to compete in badminton. The criterion could be read literally, ignoring context, but surely it wasn't intended to make a national badminton champion notable if their country regularly sends a swimmer to the Olympics. Isn't the implicit assumption that if the country competes in badminton at the Olympics, then the level of play in the country must be high enough that being a national champion would be notable? --Worldbruce (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable badminton player, meets GNG per WP:NBADMINTON. Florentyna (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion of WP:NBADMINTON? What source proves it? There has been much Wikipedia:Follow the leader, but no evidence and little discussion. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

#3 and #5, both of which are reliably sourced in the article. I don't speak Bengali, so I can't confirm the sources actually say what they're purported to say, but there's no reason to believe they don't. Smartyllama (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable per WP:NBADMINTON. One of 50+ badminton AfDs created by same user. All but this and one other one were created within a span of about half an hour or so and have already been closed as keep with no delete !votes other than nominator. This and the one other open one were created a day later, which is the only reason they are still open. Perhaps this is a matter for WP:ANI at this point as nominator has shown no WP:BEFORE work whatsoever. Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough references to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 4 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. WP:FPL is an essay and it doesn't seem like there is enough support for a NFOOTBALL or GNG keep. The longish digression seems to be more suited for a policy or guideline discussion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Gray[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: women's soccer shouldn't have the same guidelines as men. Bianca Gray played in the W-League which is one of the most professional women's leagues there are (which isn't fully pro) and is in a country consistently in the top 10 ranking, therefore of the highest level. --SuperJew (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Aoziwe (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FPL ESSAY is unreliable for women's soccer/football. Look at the essay history to get a better idea of what it really is and to whom. "The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources." My personal favorite. Ha! Hmlarson (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a W-League fan, one who hopes to Watch the Matildas play Japan four hours from now as I write this, her name doesn't ring a bell, which is a bad sign. Relevant Google hits minus Wikipedia are also thin on the ground. I suggest SuperJew move this article to his userspace, to possibly be resuscitated if Bianca should rise in stature? I do appreciate his efforts to expand our articles on women's football, but Bianca doesn't (yet) make the cut. Eliyohub (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On a general note here, I don't have a problem if we change our accepted notability for all players of all genders to be per WP:GNG or per amount of games played in a top-level or professional league, but the major problem IMO is that a male who plays 2 minutes in a dead rubber match in the Syrian Premier League can get an article, but a talented woman who played her entire career in the W-League can't. Personally I am more on the inclusionist side, so I'd prefer to be able to include both, and I don't think Wikipedia is hurt by having more articles about people, so long as the information is sourced and true. --SuperJew (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. Regardless of the feelings of editors above, it seems she played 2 games in the W-League some years ago. Whatever, people's feelings about notability criteria for female footballers, there is no escaping the fact that this is an individual whose impact on women's football in Australia has been minimal to say the least. More importantly, there is no indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Fenix down yet if she was a guy who played 7 games in the Syrian Premier League or a guy who I don't know how many games he's played because it doesn't say in any of the 2 references in a language I can read, then she is notable? --SuperJew (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In both instances, she would be presumed notable, which is all NFOOTY does. It is quite clear across the whole of NSPORT that the guideline does not trump GNG. The presumption in the instance of the first player you mention would probably be correct given that far from simply playing 7 games, he appears not only to have had a 13 year career in two fully professional leagues, but also to have played at the highest level of club football in Asia. In the second instance, ignoring the fact that this is again a player with a decade long career in a fully professional league, the fact that you cannot read the language sources are written in is a problem for you to solve if you wish, it has no bearing on any individuals notability. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. First of all, it doesn't feel at all clear that across the whole of NSPORT that the guideline does not trump GNG as many times I've seen articles being created and kept only on basis of NFOOTY. Secondly, no actually I'm not getting into discussions about individual players, as I brought them just as examples and if you search there are many more for sure. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an assessment, it's a statement of fact. The very first sentence of NSPORT says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. When an article is kept because it meets NFOOTY it is being kept because it is felt that a player has played at a high enough standard that it is likely that they have received sufficient independent coverage to satisfy GNG. The two players you noted above are excellent examples of this, where language barriers would prevent much of the enWiki community from providing local language sources to support GNG but where the length of the players' careers and the standard of the league in which they played can be used as proxies to determine a level of likely coverage. Where you find instances where you feel a player may pass NFOOTY but fail GNG, you are more than welcome to take such articles to AfD. In the case of this player though, what you need to be doing is providing sources that show GNG since, as I think we are both in agreement, that is the only guideline that really matters for notability. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Fenix down, tell me about the notability of these players: Tony Ackerman, George Atkinson (Olympic footballer), Fred Bartholomew, Jim Bartley, Tommy Blenkinsopp, John Bollington, James Briscoe, Richard Brown (footballer) (that's an especially great one), and I can go on... but I'll spare us both --SuperJew (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the forum to discuss other players' notability, I've already reassured you that if there are articles on any player whom you feel fails GNG, you should feel free to take them to AfD, so I'm not going to comment on individual players here, particularly when the selection you present includes players who have had lengthy careers in the top division of English football, have managed senior international teams or have sources in the articles indicating non-routine coverage that could satisfy GNG on its own. Fenix down (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did just that - knock yourself silly. And when you are deciding your thoughts just have a think if you'd vote the same if they were female footballers. --SuperJew (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite WP:POINTY and not a good use of anyone's time. Olympians, national team captains, players with several years of professional experience (have you ever seen female players with that sort of CV nominated for deletion??)... You're actually illustrating why having a presumption of notability is useful. These seriously need to be WP:SNOWCLOSEd. Not the right way to have this discussion. Macosal (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macosal Every week articles about women are nominated for deletion because they are about women. Let's not be completely dismissive of serious systemic issues and frankly a bunch of sad BS found here with particular editors. If you don't "believe it", I invite you to follow the article alerts and participate in the AFDs to get a better understanding. Hey, look there's 20+ right now [9]. Try sometime engaging in a discussion with one or a few of the select WP:OWNers of WP:FPL to see if they can add a reference to "fully professional" as an indicator of notability or if it's just an arbitrary standard they like to enforce without justification. Yeah, here might not be the place for this discussion. I'm sure 5-10 different user and project talk pages would be much more effective for burying the core issue again. But it doesn't really matter. Now that we all agree WP:NFOOTY is mostly ineffective, always go for WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst there may well be people who nominate articles for deletion based on gender (though I have never seen this although my exposure to biography based AfD is quite narrow), this absolutely not the case here. This article is at AfD because there is no substantial third party coverage of this player. Gender is irrelevant here. Can you show any sources that indicate GNG? Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fully professional is not arbitrary. There is certainly some correlation between professionalism and notability. How high a correlation I couldn't say, but certainly some of SuperJew's recent AfD nominations demonstrate the usefulness of having a presumption of notability one way or the other (e.g. where sources likely exist but are not online; to prevent time wasted on AfDs etc). I've said it before: I (unfortunately) don't think playing in the W-League correlates with notability. Many W-League players have little-no non-routine online coverage and so (such as this article) could never go beyond a stub. Ignoring that reality will hurt progress of gender equality on Wikipedia as much as it will help it. Macosal (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the reference? But like I mentioned above. It really doesn't matter. Your comment about the W-League players coverage might've been accurate 10-20 years ago. I personally enjoyed watching many of them beat the #1 and #6-ranked FIFA teams last week. Hmlarson (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As did I! I think the Matildas are one of if not the strongest of any Australian national sporting team. But look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Initiatives/W-League. Clearly a high proportion of W-League players have little-no non-routine independent coverage (to the extent that we would be silly to presume they are notable). Macosal (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That list is a work in progress, obviously, and you can say the same for many men's players already included under WP:FPL that do not actually meet WP:GNG. This reinforces how much WP:FPL was created for men's leagues (not women's). Otherwise, the notability criteria would be modified for context to include more than two active top-division women's leagues ... like other sports notability guidelines. Hmlarson (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is though if you relax the rules governing WP:FPL to include more women's leagues then you have to do it across the board, you cannot address one form of bias by creating another. Any change to the guideline cannot be done simply to lower the bar for articles on women whilst maintaining the bar for articles on men. By changing the rule to say remove the notion of "fully pro" and include only "pro" leagues, whilst this would allow the creation of more article on female footballers who may pass GNG, it would also encourage the creation of an awful lot more articles on male footballers who certainly wouldn't pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for WP:WOSO, Fd. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Archives/2017/September#Task force vs WikiProject. Hmlarson (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG. From a cursory Google I cannot find any sources which are non-routine, or from which an article beyond a stub could be created. Nor, it seems, can anyone else. Regardless of any debate about gender it's pretty well-established that no article should exist in such circumstances, an article cannot exist where there appear to be (as here) literally 0 non-routine sources available. Macosal (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. The comments above about articles on female players getting deleted ignore the fact that we also delete tons of articles on male footballers (well over 100 so far in 2017 alone). Number 5 7 09:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Macosal, I did a google search and came up empty. Even if WP:NFOOTBALL were met, I would give the presumption little weight. My personal standard is this - all WP:NSPORT gives is a presumption. The presumption should be given strong weight in two cases - non-English subjects (even stronger for non-Latin subjects) and older subjects (certainly pre-Internet/pre-1997ish, but I would think even something 5-10 years out). Here, we have neither. This is an English based subject, so it shouldn't be too hard to find articles on something like google. Additionally, this athlete completed in 2013, well within the most conservative window of within the five years. Show cause - until we see the sources, delete. RonSigPi (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:26, 4 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 keep. OK, people (Cullen328 and JohnKent for example) are arguing that it seems like there are sources covering this and these sources have only partially been contested. So keep, although some coverage appears to be thin enough that some folks are thinking of merging - that may be discussed on the talk page. Allegations about misconduct by Carrite or Anmccaff should be discussed elsewhere; I'd also like to state that even obvious falsehoods can have articles written on them Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GI's Against Fascism[edit]

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

Fringe, based on a self-published book, out 8 years now, yet held by only one library in Worldcat. Other sources include one from Haymarket Books, never a good sign for mainstream ideas, and a source which is probably overstating the effects of his own life's work. Ditto for the UNC published work. Anmccaff (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Politicized challenge of a topic meeting our General Notability Guideline based on footnotes already showing in the footnotes. The catty comment about Haymarket Books — the largest publisher of left wing books in the United States, bar none, and including in their catalog work by a broad spectrum of writers including Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, Ian Birchall, Ray Ginger, Alex Callinicos, Angela Davis, Philip S. Foner, and scores more is ample evidence of the bad faith of this nomination. Wikipedia is not a repository of "Mainstream Ideas," it is a comprehensive encyclopedia. (Full disclosure, I have one book forthcoming this summer in a Haymarket paperback edition and a contract for four more over the next five years; the sum total I will realize from all of these publications from Haymarket is zero dollars and zero cents.) This is a terrible biting of a newcomer article creator as well, I will add, but hey, it's all just collateral damage, eh? Carrite (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects with general notability aren't usually found principally in a self-published books with limited availability. Haymarket is hardly the largest publisher of left wing books, bar none; it's the largest publisher of stuff so left-wing, so fringe, or so marginal that others rightly don't want to touch it, bother with it, or have their names associated with it. It specializes in political fringe; anything it publishes is suspect until vetted otherwise. Note, too, that Haymarket is the Dover Books of the leftian world; "scores' of its authors are dead, and were before it even began operation. Whether you like Foner, or see him, as many do, of one of the worst academic fraudsters of his time, he had nothing to do with their decision to publish him. Anmccaff (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haymarket is the designated paperback publisher for titles by Brill publishing, a Dutch academic publisher. Keep up the content warriorism, your stripes are showing. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC) "Leftian?" What the hell is "Leftian?" That sounds like a Donald Trump word. Do you mean "radical"? "Left wing"? Haymarket publishes stuff by moderates, liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists, trotskyists, anarchists, independent radicals... I'll bet if I dig deep enough in their back catalog I can even find a conservative or two. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to protest Anmccaff creating multiple edit conflicts during my attempt to rewrite for NPOV. This is an absolutely appalling example of obstructionism in an attempt to "win" a deletion debate. Let me rewrite the fucking thing and THEN you can tag it to your heart's content. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWNership at its finest. I've already opened several of the objections to your version of reality on the talk page; you should address them there, not here. Here we should be discussing whether a subject that can really only be sourced to self-published minor sources and COI-laden fring publications is separately notable at all, much less to be spread as coatracked sections into other articles. Anmccaff (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I call attention to THE TALK PAGE and the edit history for the bad faith effort of Anmccaff to halt any rewrite of this article to correct NPOV problems. The article was started by a newcomer to WP and there are, indeed, NPOV problems. I'm not gonna edit war a content warrior over it, however, the bad faith of this nominator is there for all to see. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the time since this organization existed it would need to be widely covered to show notability. It is not, so it does not pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the General Notability Guideline. There is no requirement that any subject at WP be "widely covered to show notability." Nor does the time since a subject's existence matter a whit. What does matter is that a subject be covered in a substantial manner in multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability — which is the case for this particular subject based on two books, various newspaper stories, and a participant memoir. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; see WP:NTEMP. FourViolas (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published, nearly uncirculated, if libraries are any guide, memoirs are not, in themselves, a reliable source for anything. Minor mention in two books suggests a non-notable flash-in-the-pan in most contexts. Why shouldn't it here? Anmccaff (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep because no valid deletion rationale has been advanced; even if it were legitimate to say that all books published by Haymarket Books are not RS, which it is not, and setting aside the self-published memoir for the sake of argument, multiple reliable (academic or news) sources demonstrate that this article passes WP:GNG. In addition to those in the article, there are mentions of the group or the paper they published in an AP report, Lewis Media History 2001, Gibault Le movement sociale 2003, and Lewis 1972.

With that said, most of these sources aren't very in-depth, giving the group or its paper not much more than passing coverage in the broader context of the group they eventually merged with, the Movement for a Democratic Military, or the even broader topic of GI dissent during Vietnam. Even if the subject technically passes GNG, I feel the material would ultimately be better served by a move to a section in something like Dissent in the United States military during the Vietnam War. This broader topic is unquestionably notable, and is barely touched on in Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War. FourViolas (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep to allow for a later merge into Movement for a Democratic Military. The latter is most definitely notable, per Google books search. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad concept. This is an article created by a new Wikipedian and he obviously didn't quite get the NPOV tone right, but there's a huge learning curve here. I've been keeping him abreast of what the heck is going on here — going through the AfD wringer can't be fun as a newcomer. Anyway, this alternative solution strikes me as reasonable... Carrite (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to sources already in the article, this group was covered in an article published by the Arizona Republic on October 29, 1969. The attack by the nominator on Haymarket Books is unseemly and unjustifiable. According to our content guideline WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." I believe that books published by Haymarket are generally reliable in the context of left wing political topics. The fact that this publisher sometimes republishes works by deceased authors is evidence of nothing, and personal attacks on individual authors that it publishes are evidence of nothing and completely irrelevant to this debate. There is nothing in our policies and guidelines that requires that our sources be "mainsteam", which is an arbitrary and subjective standard. This deletion nomination is fundamentally flawed, and normal editing should proceed to improve the article. I have no objection to a possible later merge into an article about a successor organization. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Certain publishers are more likely to publish fringe material, and Haymarket is one of them. The fact that a publisher prints a particular living author may say something about it, based on the author's standing, but the "Dover" model does not. The broad spectrum" (What? Red to infrared?) of authors Carrite listed include a few who have no say about who prints their work, and naming them in that context is silly.

Merging it into one of the obvious targets make sense. Anmccaff (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the following reasons a - its periodical Duck power appears in multiple libraries and a year or so of it is available online b - it is cited in RS sources, such as newspapers from the Vietnam war era c - ok, one single self published book isn't a lot to go with, but the group has been mentioned in more mainstream sources, as a quick Google Book search will show.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What libraries have you found ""Duck Power in? WorldCat shows only 43 holdings total; ~~that's not a significant number~~. "A year or so" was all it lasted, remember. Anmccaff (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 43 is a pretty good number for a periodical such as this.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

43 holdings on WorldCat for a periodical is a ton. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly (Astoundingly? Astonishingly?), Carrite may be be correct here; like real newpapers, these seem to have been special victims of the War on Paper. The opvious counterparts -Counterpoint (not the Cockburn version) , L-McCh FP, Fed Up and G. I Voice all show similar, and in fact, lower, numbers. That certainly wasn't the case 25 years ago. Anmccaff (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm the original author and, as has been stated, am very new to this. Although a longtime fan and supporter of Wikipedia, I have only recently begun adding content. I felt my original 5 sources were enough, especially with the provided link to copies of the group's publication, Duck Power. I have, however, found 5 more reference articles from the San Diego Union which I would like to add. They refer to several of the original members of the group, the destruction of posters, the court martial of one member, civilian support, etc. I like the suggestion made above about merging this group with the larger group MDM. I have in mind contributing an article on MDM once I find enough information and sources, and I will see if that makes sense.JohnKent (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep to allow for a later redirect and merge into Movement for a Democratic Military. I started by reading the article, which is pretty thinly sourced - especially when you think of the number of academic careers that have been spent combing the 60s for dissertation, article and book topics. I next proceed to search for sources, and there is really very little. A Proquest news archive search turned up only a single mention, in a 1969 article that ('Free Thinking' GI Frustrating Elders, Endicott, William. The Austin Statesman (1921-1973); Austin, Tex. 06 Nov 1969: A16. [10].) I began to think about possible merge topics. Do we have an article on the radical/movement newspapers of the 60's? At this point I began to read the discussion and found User:K.e.coffman's suggestion. It makes a lot of sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found two more references containing information about the group and their publication: ^[1]^[2]JohnKent (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Moser, Richard (1996). The New Winter Soldiers: GI and Veteran Dissent During the Vietnam Era. Rutgers University Press. p. 88. ISBN 9780813522425.
^ Barnes, Peter (1972). Pawns: The Plight of the Citizen-soldier. Alfred A. Knopf Incorporated. p. 129. ISBN 0394436164.

TNWS doesn't even identify it by its proper name, but claims that an organization called "Duck Power" merged with an organization called "Green Machine" to form MDM. That is a fleeting mention, and inaccurate enough to question what else it got wrong. I haven't been able to check P:TPOTCS, but it seems to also make only a fleeting mention, and of the paper (and Mr. Mahoney himself) rather than the organization. Do you know otherwise? I'd have to ILL it to read it, although there's a library copy a few miles from me I could skim, but not take out. Anmccaff (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: @JohnKent: When you add a reference, it's sometimes a good idea to add {{reflist talk}} after it, so it stays pinned near the the section of the discussion its connected with. Otherwise, as others add refs, they can all get pilled up at the bottom of the page in a confusing mess. Anmccaff (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: @Anmccaff: Thank you for the reference tip. The history in TNWS is fairly accurate if a big confusing. GI's Against Fascism which originally published Duck Power merged with the group MDM at Camp Pendleton which operated out of an office or coffee house called the Green Machine.JohnKent (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No charge (pronounced "chahhdj"). No, I would not call that confusing; it's confused. As you and I know, it conflates the organizations with the publications, and, like I said, that hints at further superficiality or sloppiness. I think, though, it might be time to switch some of this over to the article talk page if we continue it, here it's a little too peripheral. Anmccaff (talk) 17:56, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Pease[edit]

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

my quick research showed person is not notable and this article is almost here to advertise the person, enwiki wikipedia article is being used as reason to create articles for him, it would be great if other colleagues also could take a look Mardetanha (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable author. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main problem here seems to be that yes, there's a lot of his promotional material on the web. But it's not all promotional, and the charge that the article is almost here to advertise the person (whatever almost means) is complete rubbish, I created it so I should know! (I have no COI or I would have disclosed it.) Pease easily satisfies GNG and the article demonstrates his notability IMO, even a quick check on his book Body Language (1981) would show this. Another problem is that our article body language does not mention his early work and should, as the term appears to have been coined by him and was certainly popularised by him. Our article cites only his 2004 book, and links to him in See also, and that's it. But check the dates on the references in that article, noting that only the recent ones even mention this now-standard term while Pease published it in 1981. Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Allan Pease is iconic in the field of body language. There is more than enough WP:NEXIST to pass WP:GNG. NOM admits only a "quick search" and also admits "almost . . to advertise . .", which seems to mean that this is a weak AfD nomination with insufficient WP:BEFORE. Certainly the article could be a lot stronger but that is not grounds for deletion. I must admit surprise that the article is not more complete. If Andrewa does not work on it I might if I can find the time. Aoziwe (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC) PS has multiple interlangauge wikilinks - so the subject has some level of wide interest. Aoziwe (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a Google scholar search [11] and got over 800 hits, but the first two pages were all written by Pease and self-published, which I guess is as far as nom and Zhangj1079 looked. But on page three are two relevant hits Body Language: It's What You Don't Say That Matters by Robert Phipps and Gender and Wildfire: Landscapes of Uncertainty by Christine Eriksen, both published in the mainstream press. This pattern is repeated on the following pages, lots of chaff but plenty of wheat too. The book by Eriksen is revealing in another way... Pease and his wife and recent co-author Barbara are (perhaps rightly) hated by much of the feminist movement, whose views are not compatible with theirs to say the least. But that's not a reason for deletion. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Alright, I seemed to have voted on delete before thinking. Thank you! Zhangj1079 (T|C) 23:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. I'm surprised that the stub I started hasn't grown by now. Perhaps this will stir us into fixing both it and the body language article. Andrewa (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has in the past and then been culled back again due to COI and due to non wiki content and sources. The edit history is quite revealing. Aoziwe (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... I've restored the stub templates. It is always permissable to remove unsourced content but better to find sources for it, and if the article is stubified the stub templates should be restored, surely all that is obvious? Apparently not. Andrewa (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted us to be sure about his notability, I have been dealing with issues around advertising him in other wikis Mardetanha (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mardetanha. Sorry but to be clear - are you withdrawing your AfD nomination. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please Mardetanha (talk) 10:11, 4 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) 19:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rader[edit]

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

Robert Rader was an NCO in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; neither his rank (staff sergeant) or his highest award (bronze star) qualify him for notability under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, he earned an education degree in Ohio and taught and coached at the high school level in Paso Robles, California; there is no significant coverage of his teaching career. After his death, an existing bridge in Paso Robles was renamed in his honor. A Company of Heroes: Personal Memories about the Real Band of Brothers and the Legacy They Left Us includes a section about him based on interviews with his family. He is generally not notable outside Paso Robles. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bridge notable? It would be appropriate to include info on him in an article on it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. It took me a while to even find it. It's on 13th Street in Paso Robles; the dedication placque is in a small park at one end.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- From Google Street View, it's a pretty generic bridge.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and there's nothing else there. Coverage not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. The name can be re-direct to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment article and mention there. Kierzek (talk) 17:33, 2 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. No consensus on a redirect target, as an aside Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 3ds Update History[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is just a change log (a directory) which is prohibited by WP:CHANGELOG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 13:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nintendo 3DS. Wikipedia is not a directory. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 14:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we do redirect I should be to Nintendo 3DS system software#History of updates.--76.65.43.125 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12, mostly copied from here. Also WP:CHANGELOG per nom. -- ferret (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to copyright issues, but I would keep in mind that some prose-based discussion of major changes to the software would not be unwarranted in the 3DS article. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CHANGELOG. Doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above, the phrase isn't common enough to warrant a redirect. czar 18:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Czar. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete as an obvious version history that violates several proscriptions of WP:WWIN. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:14, 2 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 Veganism#Flag. Selective merge. I'll leave it up to whoever does the merge how much material to bring over. In any case, leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan flag[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Alexbrn (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete - On balance, and studying the availability of sources, I think this perhaps WP:TOOSOON. The design and launch has been mentioned in a few Vegan-orientated blogs and news sites (http://www.veganfoodandliving.com/international-vegan-flag-launched/ , http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=9771&catId=1 , http://modvegan.com/vegan-flag/ , http://www.livekindly.co/the-vegan-flag/) and a NZ website as they're a bit miffed that the flag closely resembles an existing local one (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/94639332/First-vegans-came-for-red-meat-now-they-re-coming-for-Red-Peak). But there is no sign of wider coverage in WP:RSs as yet. It's only been a couple of weeks since the launch. Perhaps this will in time become as ubiquitous as the LGBT flag, in which case it will definitely warrant an article. But for now it just seems too early to tell whether this will become a prominent symbol, or fade into obscurity. As a compromise, why not redirect for now to Veganism, where there is already a section on "Symbols" with the flag mentioned there. If the flag becomes more widely reported on and mentioned, it can be expanded back out into its own article. 77.96.115.80 (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 13:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because WP:ILIKEIT, but yes, probably too soon, so Merge (EDIT: same day, 45 minutes or so later: Although sources are being quickly added, so will keep checking on those). The author of the page should keep an eye out for good sources, when a couple good ones show up, or if this is covered on cable news, regular network news, or becomes more widely accepted within the vegan-vegetarian-animal rights groups, please come back and ask for the page to be brought back from wherever deleted pages go, and try again. Sources will be key on a page like this, as editors will be watching. Thanks for the initial start-up, a good topic (although it would be nice if this was also called the 'vegetarian flag' as well as vegan). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Page has been moved to Vegan flag.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Is there a flag for everything nowadays? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 14:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the flag articles have the sources. This one is getting some further sources as this discussion takes place, so it may pass that hurdle soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The flag is indeed relatively new but the recognition and acceptance of the flag around the world is exceptionally quick. Things move faster these days because of the social media. Some of the references are in the article, and I have seen many more on Facebook from over twenty countries. Yesterday I saw by chance an interview on the BBC with Tim Shieff - he was wearing the Vegan Flag. Shieff is a well known animal rights activist, so the flag is spreading real fast.

When things happen so fast it's a pity to delete an article in haste, only to realize shortly afterwards that it was not justified. Let's wait a bit and see PelicanTwo (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, speedy pace of things not withstanding, that still boils down to a WP:CRYSTAL argument. The truth is, like any topic for which upcoming sourcing is speculative, we don't know when or if RS will surface. But your argument is perhaps sufficient to retain some of the content in a merge (see below). Snow ^{let's rap} 02:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a relevant article(s) on veganism and/or vegan activism. There are some incidental mentions in secondary sourcing, but their dubious status as WP:RS, their niche audience, and the general superficiality of the coverage in general suggests to me that WP:GNG is not really being met here. That said, some of the content probably could find a home in other articles, until such time as coverage in reliable sources ha e been established, after which the article could be reconstituted. WP:TOOSOON does seem like the right call here. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is not an ideal option in this case, because the notability of the flag dynamic and once it is merged with something else it is buried there, and it will be hard to pluck it out. Even if in a few months the flag will definitely merit its own article. It's tricky to show the acceptance of a symbol. Obviously there is no statistics, and most of the activity may be on Facebook and doesn't appear in Google. There are many articles about the flag in Portugues, Spanish, Russian, French, from India, in Italian, from Tawian etc. But the marketplace may serve as an indicator. There is a lot of merchandising based on the design, manufactured by quick merchants. This can't be used in the article though. Here are some of the items on offer: T shirts, handbags, pendents from AliExpress (url is blocked by wiki), badges, buttons,wrapping paper, and dresses. I was most surprised by the wrapping paper :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PelicanTwo (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe that is an indicator of what is to come in terms of reliable sources, but (as you allude to yourself) all of that evidence is WP:OR and not useful for establishing notability for our purposes here. But I'm a little confused as to why you think a selective merge in the meantime (as opposed to a simple delete) is problematic. Provided that sourcing does eventually arise to justify the article, then there will be no difficulty in adding the content back in. The only difference between a merge and a delete here is whether we keep a (probably pretty minimal) mention of the flag in another vegan article or two, pending the independent article being revived. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the contributors to this article also created {{vegan-film-stub}} and Category:Vegetarian or Vegan-related film stubs (which is also up for deletion). Fortdj33 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vegan symbolism, with or without re-establishing that as an independent page.

The subject fails GNG for having no in-depth sources. The veg*n-targeting media cited are not inherently unreliable, but given that controversy exists about this symbol, the fact that they're all reworkings of the same press release means that none of them qualifies as sufficiently "in-depth" to support a reasonably useful and NPOV article. The stuff.co.nz article is unreliable and uninformative.

I'd actually support moving this to Vegan symbolism, which was merged into Veganism#Symbols recently without consensus. In my opinion, this created an unduly detailed subsection; there have been hundreds of books published about Veganism#Vegan_diet and Veganism#Philosophy, compared with a few blog mentions of most (supposedly) vegan-associated symbols. Pinging User:KDS4444 in case he wants to weigh in. FourViolas (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge was admittedly performed without consensus— Vegan symbolism had been recently created and the need for a merge seemed obvious to me, but I would not oppose the recreation of the symbolism article if the flag article were to be incorporated into it and if a standalone article on Vegan symbolism seemed justified to others. Separate articles on the movements and the symbols of the movements do seem redundant to me if the article on the movement itself is not overly long. If the section on Vegan symbolism within Veganism is overly detailed, perhaps that section should be curtailed instead of a return to a standalone article (?). But thank you for the ping. KDS4444 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Veganism § Flag. The topic has received some coverage, such as this, but not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 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) 19:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kropschot[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA PRehse (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MMABIO states that fighters who have competed in amateur bouts only are not notable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a professional competitor; fails WP:GNG. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 15:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and two amateur fights (according to Sherdog) clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 31 July 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) 19:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Jo Burns[edit]

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

Non-notable writer with one published book. Sources are primary or not reliable (blogs, social media). Searches found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Neiltonks (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable, especially since said lone published book is a memoir. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 15:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is built around works that she authored, not works about her, some of which are also her personal website or blogs she created, which means not even a little external monitoring. Having an article published in even a major publication does not make one notable. Even being a regular contributor to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post does not gaurantee that someone is notable. She is many orders of magnitude below that level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 4 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. There were suggestions to merge this into catastrophism , but I don't see sufficient support for that to include it in the consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent catastrophism[edit]

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

I see no improvement since the first AfD and no major difference in terms of sources actually discussing the subject, which most of the sources fail to do. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, the first two are its main proponents, Cube and Napier. The statement "That coherent catastrophism affects Earth is broadly accepted as fact within the cometary science community" is sourced but there is no page number and the source only mentions it once, as a suggestion for further reading on page 235.[12] The next bit of that sentence says the debate has moved on but I see no debate, just more articles by Cube and Napier. We then have "Exceptions include research groupings associated with the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis,[7] Burckle crater,[8] and Gobekli Tepe". Working backwards, the "research grouping" for Gobekli Tepe is no such thing, it is an article by a professor of chemical engineering and a graduate student. Peer reviewed, yes, but according to User:Joe Roe published in a very minor journal which normally doesn't deal with this sort of paper. The Buckle Crater "research group" source is a conference presentation and however impressive its authors may be you can download it (link on the right of this page[13] and search it - you won't find the word "coherent", let alone "coherent catastrophe". The Firestone paper on the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis[14] also fails to mention "coherent" or "coherent catastrophe". The section on mechanism is sourced mainly to Cube and Napier, and I haven't yet checked the other sources to see if they mention the subject. Finally, the last section starts "The current epoch of coherent catastrophism is thought to be caused by.." Again, the sources[15] [16] don't mention the subject.

So basically this article seems no different except for the addition of a lot of WP:Synthesis. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This looks like a recreation of a deleted content and therefore should be subject to G4. I am going merely by memory though as I'm not an admin and cannot see the deleted content. Same arguments apply as last time. jps (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per jps. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC) The procedural conditions for a speedy outcome are no longer satisfied. I have no opinion on the current content, so I will refrain from offering an opinion, except to say that I apparently found this to be convincing at the time. But it seems like there is a greater depth of opinion this time around that at least deserves a hearing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFRINGE. As Doug says, the only coverage the article cites is papers by its proponents and other fringe authors. I can't find any independent coverage of it in reliable secondary sources. Perhaps merits a brief mention in catastrophism but that's it. – Joe (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I changed my mind since the last debate. I'm also the one that curated the new article. Nothing in WP:FRINGE says that notable minority theories shouldn't have articles, suitable written with care to sources and POV. The previous article was written by an advocate, this one is apparently written by a less involved editor. Some secondary/tertiary sources to consider: Impact!: The Threat of Comets and Asteroids 1997 Gerrit Verschuur; Controversy Catastrophism and Evolution: The Ongoing Debate 2012 Trevor Palmer; Physical Geography: The Key Concepts 2009 Richard Huggett. There are dozens more books at least mentioning this term, quite a number that discuss it in detail. A quick browse also shows up a number of academic papers by authors other than the obvious four, not necessarily advocating the concept but discussing it. Lithopsian (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question @Lithopsian: what do you think of the issues that I've raised with the article itself? Statements not backed by sources discussing the subject? Doug Weller talk 14:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, I didn't pay too much attention. If an article on a notable subject is poorly written or poorly sourced then it should be improved, not deleted. Only in extreme cases would I vote to just delete an article on a subject that we would otherwise want. So I looked at the literature independently of the article, actually when I was curating not when this AfD came up. Lithopsian (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Lithopsian: How about a merge and redirect to catastrophism? The sources you point out do not strike me as in-depth enough to allow for a full article. jps (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. Though restated, I don't see anything new in the article. --regentspark (comment) 13:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author of this article I will of course vote to keep. but I am unsure if this is a democracy. Going through all the comments individually will take some time, so I'll try to summarize. The main objection appears to be the lack of independent sources that discuss this subject. As Lithospian has already pointed out, there are numerous books that discuss it, and I will endeavour to find them and update where appropriate. Being closer to the research, I was intent on initially providing the primary research sources. The next issue, again, is that the work by Sweatman and Tsikritsis doesn't count, as they are engineers. This is a baseless criticism, and quite frankly, insulting to them. I am sure they are fine researchers. Joe Roe's opinion on the matter is of much less value than a peer-reviewed research article by professional scientists. Yes, the Burckle Crater source is a conference proceeding. As a scientists myself I am 'programmed' to always use the earliest source. I can update that with more authoritative peer-reviewed papers and other articles. The Holocene Impact Working Group is a respectable scientific grouping with many papers, as a quick search will reveal. I will endeavour to find ones that actually refer to CC directly. Yes, again, I chose the earliest paper about the YD impact hypothesis - this paper is now cited over 400 times, with many references to CC within that body of work. Again, I will endeavour to find the most pertinent ones. Regarding the 'Mechanism' section, again, these are primary sources. If you know the subject you will realise the papers by Napier here are treating the subject directly - they are providing the mechanism. He might not use the term himself in these papers, but what he is doing here is showing how CC can occur. The articles by Ipatov also cited are probably what you would call Synthesis - I was using them as they also show how giant comets can be trapped by the inner solar system, but they don't mention CC directly. I'll remove them. Joe suggests deletion on the basis that the authors of the papers cited are all fringe. I'd like to know what Joe's definition of Fringe is? These are all highly respected journals, and well-respected researchers in their academic communities. The papers are highly cited in the main. The issue of whether CC should be moved to a sub-section of catastrophism is the only real debate here. Given its importance I would say it deserves its own page. CC has around 1000 hits via Google - is that considered enough? I am sure that hit count will grow rapidly if the article is kept. The other editors haven't said anything except 'see previous decision - G4' whatever that means. Finally, I'd like to remind the editors that Wikipedia is, by a distance, the most frequently used online encyclopedia. An issue as important as this one should not be treated lightly, and the outputs of its research community should not just be dismissed without even reading them. Yes, they are controversial - but that is how good science proceeds. The public expects this kind of important topic to be represented on Wikipedia. As I said, I'll update the references to include more secondary ones - as a practising scientist I am programmed to always cite the earliest primary reference.WikiNeedsEditing (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)WikiNeedsEditing[reply]

Not a comment on the topic but do note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal. "Good science" "proceeds" in scientific journals and only shows up on Wikipedia when it is validated or discussed by reliable secondary sources. Thus, for example, we don't report findings directly from peer reviewed journal articles (that's the good science part) but rather from other papers that comment on the findings of an article. Find sufficient reliable secondary sources that talk about Coherent catastrophism, and in enough detail and with enough indication of the importance of the topic for a stand alone article rather than a mention somewhere else, and you won't have a problem. --regentspark (comment) 15:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @WikiNeedsEditing: This is more of a weighing of the arguments then a vote, in fact we call the keep and delete statements !votes. The issue is does this subject meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability. Read the "General notability guideline" section. In particular, ""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So we need sources either discussing Napier and Cube's primary articles or other peer reviewed sources by experts in the subject. Chemical engineers are obviously not experts on astrophysics, which is why I and others don't see them as reliable sources (see WP:RS for this subject. We really do need sources discussing "coherent catastrophism" directly. I don't think you've provided them and that leads me to wonder why it's so hard to find them. As for Google hits, that's not really a criteria. Note also that Wikipedia is explicitly not a venue to promote new ideas. But I'm basiclly repeating what RegentsPark has said with some elaboration. I think that Wikipedia is sometimes hardest for academics to edit because it is so different from publishing a paper or even a traditional encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @WikiNeedsEditing: no Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a vote. We reach decisions based on the principle of consensus. You are welcome to join the discussion, but please be aware that arguments based on already agreed upon policies and guidelines will carry more weight than others (e.g. the number of Google hits). WP:NOTABILITY and WP:FRINGE are particularly relevant in this case.

The definition of fringe we use here on Wikipedia is "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". I am not sure how there can be any dispute that coherent catastrophic is a fringe theory. All of the sources Lithopsian has provided describe it as the minority view of a handful of astronomers. The YD impact hypothesis has never been widely accepted. The Burckle group say of their own hypothesis: "I wouldn't expect 99.9 per cent of the scientific community to agree with us". And while I'm sure Sweatman and Tsikritsis are fine researchers in their own fields, they have no expertise in archaeology and their paper on Gobekli is riddled with errors. I really don't think the question here is whether coherent catastrophism is fringe, it's whether it's notable fringe.

If you would like to see this article retained the best thing you can do is find and add the independent secondary sources you referred to. But please make sure they actually say what you claim they say. As Doug has already noted, several of the citations in the article at the moment don't support the statements they're supposed to.

I'll also echo RegentsPark in reminding you that we're not here to do the work of scientists (although many of us are scientists in our day jobs). Good research might thrive on controversy and debate, but a good encyclopaedia is balanced and conservative. We're not equipped to assess ideas on the cutting edge of science. Leave that to the journals; once the issue is settled, we can put it in the encyclopaedia. There's no rush. – Joe (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the previous comment, that the article should be improved, not deleted. So I've added two new sections, liberally referenced with academic sources, which should satisfy requirements. --Iantresman (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also attempted to clean the article up a bit, using the sources Lithopsian found. I'm still not entirely convinced that there's enough coverage to merit a separate article from catastrophism. I'm also wandering how reliable these sources are, since they all seem to support the theory, despite admitting it's a minority view, and are somewhat polemical about opposing (mainstream) views. – Joe (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - A merge to catastrophism may be okay, but that subject is much, much broader and I feel a duly weighted version would be extremely truncated (maybe a sentence or two?) jps (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why would we truncate an article when we have the information, and I am sure that more is available if we looked. Wikipedia is supposed to inform. --Iantresman (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Iantresman: Not all information is equal. If this is a minority view (and all the available sources indicate it is), but the only people writing about it are its proponents, we don't have enough material to write an article that conforms to WP:NPOV/WP:DUE. – Joe (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, which is why we use secondary sources, which is what I did, and, I found in included criticism. I also think you misunderstand WP:NPOV. It does not require us to provide counter-points and counter-criticism (especially if none exists), but it requires us to (a) describe what source we do have, neutrally (b) frame those sources in the wider context. For all we know, there will never be any opponents to the "coherent catastrophism", in which case we'd never get an article on the subject. --Iantresman (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no requirement to use every possible source. WP:V is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The notability of the research program is quite lacking. It's basically three qausi-Velikovskians who wrote a few popular-level books and published a limited number of papers. I know of research groups at single institutions that are more prolific, larger, and have produced larger bodies of work on topics that are (rightly) only obscure sub-sub-sections of articles here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I count at least a dozen different secondary sources in the articles. Even if the idea came from a psychic parrot, it makes no difference. --Iantresman (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, those secondary sources are merely supporting original research that is best left to peer reviewed academic journals. For example, the sentence The current epoch of coherent catastrophism is thought to be caused by a giant comet that entered the inner solar system some 20 to 30 thousand years ago,[13][14] and has fragmented to produce Comet Encke and the Taurid meteor stream.[9][15][16][17][18][19], which contains seven of those sources, none of which appear to mention coherent catastrophism, is better suited to an academic journal where other researchers can judge whether the evidence and conclusions are validly drawn. (Actually, that entire section is WP:OR.) --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think so. For example, references [13] and [14] are primary sources, which the Wikipedia article must treat with caution. That doesn't make the section original research in itself, just that it would be better to use secondary sources.--Iantresman (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It is classic original research. Using a bunch of primary sources to provide evidence for a theory that is not mentioned by those sources is exactly what forms original research. Good research, perhaps, but suited for peer review journals which can examine whether the evidence justifies the conclusions drawn by the researchers. Not so suited for an encyclopedia which reports established theories that have been validated by the community. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sock puppet creator This article was created by a CU confirmed sock of the creator of the first version who in turn was a sock of another editor pushing Sweatman and Tsikritsis, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake. If this had been discovered at the time it was created we would simply have deleted the article. It also explains some of the flaws in the article as created and revised by that editor. However, Iantresman has made some significant changes and I may re-evaluate my position on the article. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's the issue (again). The carving out of this particular subject as a subject is done basically in the context of Velikovsky. It is unfortunate that two geology texts makes reference to this, but perhaps not surprising because source churn often creates the appearance of actual research material when someone from outside the field evaluates it (note that the mainstream geology texts refer to "astronomers" as a cohesive unit as though there is discussion about evidence in favor of this proposal which, I insist, there is not). The truth is that Wikipedia has a long history with fringe POV-pushing in this area (there is a discussion related to this on Iantresman's talkpage that I refer to here, but wish not to get bogged down in the details on this page), and I think that Wikipedia runs a great risk of over-empahsizing a topic that simply does not have the notice that other topics have. Just the fact that there seem to be references to a kind of "coherent catastrophism" and "stochastic catastrophism" (notice the redirect) for which there is nothing in the way of consensus among the sources in the throwaway quotes as to what the actual subjects mean. Including discussion of some of this stuff may be appropriate in the main catastrophism page, as would, for example, discussion of the development of learning about major volcanism and impact events in Earth's history. But this subject as a standalone is not articleworthy, I insist. jps (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 and G5. Geogene (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (preferably) or merge A Google Scholar search turns up some references but they're mostly the same few names over and over again. The hypothesis appears to have been given no attention by the broader physics and astronomy community, not even to debunk it. The notability guideline for fringe theories says "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (emphasis is in the original). I have not seen evidence of sufficiently "extensive" discussion for a standalone article. Contrast this with, say, Velikovsky, which has been sufficiently discussed to merit an article. If the content is to survive at all (and I'm quite skeptical), it should be merged into another article such as catastrophism where it can be discussed in context. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. After following up a bit on Doug's excellent analysis of the finer details, I have to agree that the actual degree of coverage in reliable sources for this hypothesis (and seemingly support amongst academics as well) is minimal and superficial. That said, this is not exactly a super out-there notion, and there's some minimal coverage, so I think it warrants mention amongst the span of ideas about catastrophism in general on some article, so I favour a very selective merge (with the small amount of research/support for the theory mentioned explicitly in any article the content is merged into), with delete being the only reasonable option if a merge cannot be supported. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:10, 2 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. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 09:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Zakharova[edit]

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

Tennis player not yet shown to meet either the inclusion requirements of WP:NTENNIS nor WP:GNG. The young lady has had a moderate junior career, but has not won a Junior Grand Slam event, nor been ranked in the top three on the Junior Circuit. It's WP:TOOSOON. Scottyoak2 (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere near notable. Nothing more than a junior tennis player. Adamtt9 (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - This article was created by a sockpuppet block evader. It's not notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 28 July 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) 19:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Kacher[edit]

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

The sources provided currently within the article (as direct hyperlinks) are unreliable (youtube variety). I've tried to search deep and low and haven't been able to find the requisite sources. The article says that many newspapers call him "the small town boy who made it big". I couldn't find any such newspaper sources (are there regional sources? I couldn't find...). The article is made probably by his sister or some other relative. In my view, the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, WP:MUSICBIO and of course, WP:BIO and should be deleted. Lourdes 11:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - An AfD was not required. This was Speedy Deleted earlier, and from the surname of the creator it is evident that she is creating a page for her brother/relative. Nothing to indicate any improvements since the last time this was CSDed and all the titles bestowed on him were probably done ín-house. Jupitus Smart 12:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jupitus Smart. As I don't have access to the deleted version, there's no way to tell if the previous version was the same or not. I find certain lines within the article providing a credible claim of significance (for example, claiming to be the Voice of Madhya Pradesh award winner); so don't know if A7 can apply. Can this be considered unambiguously promotional? I'll ping Sjb72 who deleted the article earlier and let them decide. Thanks. Lourdes 13:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion, and though there seems to be some improvement since the last article, I do not see anything to merit keeping this for 7 days, after which it will anyway be deleted.Jupitus Smart 13:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm okay with anything. Lourdes 13:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just passing through, but saw the ping. The deleted version is a lot shorter than the current one. One paragraph is copied verbatim - the opening paragraph of the section Early Life Amit Kacher was born in a small town... without taking a piece of bread. Stephen! ^Coming... 14:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've cleared out a lot of the puffery and irrelevant unreferenced claims, but left the unreferenced claims hint at notability. Not a candidate for speedy deletion as there are some claims for notability, but I concur with Lourdes that there doesn't appear to be notability. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 4 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 Deleted under WP:G5. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 10:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Kuanysh[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 28 July 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 Deleted under WP:G5 . (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Cherkasova[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 28 July 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 deleted by Basalisk under A7. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 11:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Shalabaeva[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This article has been created and edited by the same pattern as those detailed here [17] Scottyoak2 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My cursory search didn't find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:39, 29 July 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 ♠ 09:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violetta Romaniuk[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article was created by a sockpuppet block evader. It's not notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 28 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rathish Nayaka[edit]

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

Badly written, unsourced BLP. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. BangJan1999 09:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CREATIVE. Poorly-written: suggest WP:DYNAMITE if the creator wants to try again. DrStrauss talk 13:18, 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. May be re-brought to AfD after a span of not less than 3 months. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three Point Capital[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs note that its arrived in Ohio and that it has a website. Packing the article out with film titles rather draws attention to the lack of general substance. All refs way below the line for notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't the many films worked on clearly indicate notability? Also its a private company you cannot expect it to have many sources on it. Awilliams103 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilliams103: Notability is not inherited. Working on a notable film does not make the company inherently notable. The general notability guideline is still the best baseline: has the company been written about in depth in multiple independent reliable sources? If a company is notable—public or private—it should meet that guideline. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Variety article goes into some depth—or it's parroted from a press release. I feel like it's too early to delete it; I'd like more time to do source-searching. That said, this is a keep "without prejudice": if three to six months pass and no sources are located, I think a second AfD nomination is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went ahead and added some more sources and information and will continue to do so. Thanks for the info @C.Fred:. Awilliams103 (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and as previously noted, packing the article with film titles doesn't mean the company is notable since notability is not inherited. The Variety article fails the criteria for establishing notability WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND since the article relies almost exclusively on quotations and information from the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: I am a little confused as you said it mostly relies on information from the company but only references it once for two sentences. Also which quotes are you referring too? A. Williams 00:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please evaluate the new sources that have been added to the article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I'm really on the bubble about this article. On the one hand, the Variety article really does seem to be a pretty thorough profile-- I don't have any evidence that it's just parroted from a press release and it's a great source. The Hollywood Reporter piece and the Moviemaker Magazine piece seem good too (I've put a bullet list below that you can look at of all the new sources). I have to !vote for a weak keep, but honestly only just, and I feel hardpressed to imagine this article going past Start-class (couldn't find any other sources either). Also, Awilliams103, you're an employee of the company, right? I think it'd be good for transparency if you mention that somewhere on this thread.
- No Film School: Article is about summarizing different speakers, one of whom is an employee of the company. Not actually about the company.
- Justia: It's a legal filing. Has no impact on being notable.
- Hollywood Reporter: About the company filing a suit against the producers of Jobs. Still not the main focus of the article, but definitely much more central.
- Moviemaker Magazine: Seems notable-- couldn't find any sources on their editorial policy but it's probably because it's just really late as I'm writing this. Nomader (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; mostly passing mentions. Whatever content that's been recently added amounts to a directory listing and can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. Created and extensively edited by (what appears to be) and employee of the company; please see User_talk:Awilliams103#Your_username.

If this ends up as "keep" or "no consensus", then absolutely nuke the list of films -- it is excessive and promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here that although I !voted keep, I agree with K.e.coffman that the list of films should be removed. Nomader (talk) 15:13, 31 July 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. bd2412 T 04:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boys (TV series)[edit]

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

The original version of this page appears to be vandalism verging a hoax. See [18] for how bad it was. I've trimmed out most of it (unsourced and probably bogus claims, unrelated links and articles, claims of twin incest, etc) and there's not much left. On Sept 6 and 7 2016 there was a flurry of Hollywood-type discussions of a planned new TV show. And nothing since. I couldn't verify any of the many claims made (synopsis, actors, writers, etc). I don't see how a simple mention of plans for a possible TV show merit an article. I can't even verify that this project is still happening, let alone confirm that it is notable enough to warrant an article before it is released. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL might be of interest too. Meters (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i'm not suggesting a redirect to any of the possible targets (Dick Wolf, Zayn Malik , etc) since I think the original content is actually a hoax. If we want a redirect this should be deleted first and then recreated. Meters (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this was picked by a major network and starred Zayn Malik...well, let's go over what's wrong with this;
- - - NBC would definitely not be leaving something like this to a do-nothing E/I Saturday morning block such as The More You Know. This would be a prime-time show.
    - Litton Entertainment owns the TMYK block. It produces every show in the block. They would likely never allow another company to take up a half-hour of their block.
    - Dualstar is a dormant company which produced Olsen Twins stuff. Yeah, they aren't getting back into the television business.
    - It's a Laugh Productions is basically the in-name-only teen sitcom arm of the Disney Channel and Disney XD. This is a drama show...on NBC. Disney owner ABC is their direct competitor. It's a Laugh basically states in their own name they don't do drama. Again, not happening.
    - American TV doesn't have 45 minute shows...unless they're hour shows with commercials. And TMYK shows are universally half-hours.
    - The E/I law wouldn't allow this show to air a minute before NBC was slapped with million dollar fines for airing an infomercial about a teen idol as a 'host-selling program' where it is, on Saturday mornings.
    - Dick Wolf; not exactly producing shows about teen idols. He is one of the kings of NBC with the L&O and Chicago franchises, but this seems like an unlikely project for him.
    - Show was announced for the 2017-18 pilot season; guess what isn't showing up right now in NBC's fall schedule?
    - No other stories about this program came out since September.
    - And is it a drama or reality series? Going by this article, we have no idea of its format.

Basically, this is a whole bunch of hoax information wrapped around the announcement of a pilot which has no hope of coming to the air anytime soon. Per WP:TVSHOW, we've got nothing here for a keep (also Meter's link to that revision makes some of our worst hoaxes look like child's play; this WP:RESCUE is plain dire). Nate • (chatter) 05:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this a hoax? Please evaluate the sources post-relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May have been a series idea, but it apparently hasn't gotten anywhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TVSHOW: "... in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network..." This one has no announced premiere date. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as WP:OR. bd2412 T 04:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religiousness of young and emerging adults[edit]

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

Article seems to be college essay uploaded in 2012, delete as per WP:FORUM Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Barryob: The issues are explicitly not reasons for deletion. WP:DEL-REASON. Not saying it's not worth nominating, but you may want to add to your deletion rationale. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I accept that this article needs a lot of work to be done on it. I think that it could do with a new title such as "Religion in young adulthood" - the talk page does query the use of the phrase "emerging adults". Vorbee (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and Vorbee. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for college essays, which is what this appears to be. With extensive rework, the topic may be suitable for its own article, but this really doesn't look like the base for that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic and article is notable, needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is obviously an essay (and one with OR synthesis since there are plenty of religion articles that could contain - and may already contain - any of its useful content, and an essay that is flawed to boot since what is applicable to one group of IPU believers would not be applicable to all yet the essay makes no such allowances). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that this is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry, and it is an essay based on a handful of sources that likely present a narrow view of the subject. Famous _dog (c) 07:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original essay, not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia policy states that original essays and original research should not be included as articles. I do not see this as a cleanup issue. Malinaccier (talk) 00:10, 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) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arsalan Taj Ghumman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and much harder WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this autobio, created and expanded by SPAs over the years. fails WP:POLITICIAN. he has received press coverage but i failed to find anything beyond namechecking news stories which doesn't make the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on WP. --Saqib (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 4 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Power 100[edit]

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

Non-notable topic fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned by The Herald magazine [19] and by Shahid Javed Burki as "an event that honors the achievements and contributions of influential men and women from within the international Pakistani community and recognizes the positive impact they have had on a local, national and international level..." [20]. Also covered in every reliable Pakistani/non-Pakistani news source [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. This ref says the list had 33,000 nominations. Mar4d (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: Fair enough. Greenbörg (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Latif Yousafzai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being lawyer is not notable. One should be 'judge' at national or sub-national level per WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has served as Advocate general which is senior officer of the law therefore should be kept. --Saqib (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Saqib. Mentioned as such on a Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government website. Mar4d (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Rashid[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and seems to fails harder WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete received some press coverage and could pass WP:GNG but clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep as she is running in the elections from the same constitution as the next potential prime minister. Basimshoaib (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2017 (UCT) — Basimshoaib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Week KeepObaid Raza (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete she is major personality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.53.159 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the subject is going to contest an upcoming by-election, I am expecting she would receive massive press coverage therefore I striked my earlier week delete vote. --Saqib (talk) 18:44, 30 July 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. by User:RHaworth as WP:G4, G5. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josie the Bee[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable as yet unpublished book for kids. I don't know if this is a hoax, but this article has been repeatedly created by multiple editors under multiple book names. Sorry I don't know the prior users and article names, but over that last couple of days this has been at Josie the Bee, Becky the Honey Bee, Charlotte the Bee and Terri the Bee, and has been edited by SPAs Bugzy499 and Imcute88 Meters (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there was a previous AFD on one of the earlier articles but, again, I can't find it. Or maybe they were speedied. If someone remembers please link it. Meters (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Previous titles include Lola the Buzzy Bee (speedied 3 times, AFD'ed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lola the Buzzy Bee and salted), User:HappyTaffy34/Carrie the Buzzy Bee, Annie The Good Bee, Julie The Good Bee, and there may have been more. The SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reno919. I'll add the new users to the SPI, and tag the articles for speedy G4 and G5. Meters (talk) 07:48, 28 July 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 List of Pakistanis by net worth. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani politicians by net worth[edit]

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

Useful information can easily be covered on the article List of Pakistanis by net worth. We don't have such a list yet. Greenbörg (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Pakistanis by net worth. we don't this standalone page. --Saqib (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see why politicians should have a separate list. Those who are notable for their wealth can easily be listed on List of Pakistanis by net worth. Mar4d (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 29 July 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) 19:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation psychotherapy[edit]

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

Fringe psychology method. It's not an accepted method, there are no studies on it. It is the personal practice of a Christian minister and his wife. The only references in the article are self published books, with two "background references" to Darwin and Frenkl. The YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCuKH50RZcA gives a feel for it, a nice old guy with a few platitudes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per WP:FRINGE, there is a need for more coverage than a selection of books from an author who is a proponent of this. I couldn't see anything in PubMed, for example. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:43, 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 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like an essay, rather than a Wikipedia article. Deletion argument as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presents the theories of a single individual as part of a broader movement within psychotherapy. Everything I found on Google could be traced back to Frank Morris. Famous _dog (c) 07:43, 3 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) 19:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Jack Ransom[edit]

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

The only source on this page 404'd therefore leaving no sources whatsoever. As stated by others before and especially now after extensive searching, nothing could be found on this comic book online. All searches resulted in this wikipedia page or one other site that hosts wiki pages. Nothing else. All tags on this page link to one other page which is also being nominated for deletion because it also, has no sources other than to link back to here. Nothing could be found on the publisher online as well which not only gives question to whether the comic existed (I'm sure it probably did at some point) but also gives obvious reason for this to be removed due to relevancy sake.

It's currently under these two reasons that it's being considered for deletion and the article is still editable at this point to rectify this.

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) User:Thekingofdallas Talk

Delete - I found evidence it existed, but nothing more. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 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]

Delete sentences like "It is believed that the sketches and script of this last adventure have long been lost to a terrible fire at creator Billy Hughes' humble abode in Bismarck, North Dakota." suggest this is fancruft. The fact that there are almost exclusively primary sources suggests it's not encyclopedic. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:11, 31 July 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) 19:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Adventures of Jack Ransom characters[edit]

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

There are no sources on this page that can be verified through extensive research. As stated by others before and especially now after extensive searching, nothing could be found on this comic book online. All searches resulted in this wikipedia page or one other site that hosts wiki pages. Nothing else. All tags on this page link to one other page which is also being nominated for deletion because it also, has no sources other than to link back to here. Nothing could be found on the publisher online as well which not only gives question to whether the comic existed (I'm sure it probably did at some point) but also gives obvious reason for this to be removed due to relevancy sake.

It's currently under these two reasons that it's being considered for deletion and the article is still editable at this point to rectify this.

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) User:Thekingofdallas Talk

Delete - I found evidence that the comic existed, but little else. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 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]

Merge/Delete to The Adventures of Jack Ransom. I suspect that page will be deleted and then this one should be deleted as well; it should be merge/redirected to The Adventures of Jack Ransom if it isn't deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:09, 31 July 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) 19:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Geric[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) 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability gudelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 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]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 2 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) 19:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akim Ramoul[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) 00:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 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 06:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or any of the criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 31 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick 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) 00:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 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]

Delete No significant coverage and nothing to show WP:NHOCKEY is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harond Litim[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) 00:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 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]

Delete No significant independent coverage and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 01:25, 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) 19:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yassine Fahas[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) 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 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]

Delete No significant independent coverage and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 31 July 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) 19:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Tawfiq[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 and GNG. 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) 05:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 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 06:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 31 July 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) 19:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Chol-min[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) 00:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 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]

Delete No significant coverage and fails WP:NHOCKEY since he only played in lower tiers of the world championships. Papaursa (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY No significant coverage. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:57, 2 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) 19:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batzayaagiin Pürevdorj[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]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 4 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Iqbal[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited nor it makes you notable by joining a party. Most sources only name check him. No source discusses him. He actually fails WP:NPOL. He can only be notable by WP:GNG which requires significant coverage. Greenbörg (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep OK. so the subject has received a lot of press coverage and had unsuccessfully ran for the seat of the parliament, but he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN so i suggest week Keep. --Saqib (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic notation program[edit]

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

This article cites no sources beyond the product and company's webpages, and I can't find anything that would satisfy WP:V or WP:N. Half of this permastub is unfounded speculation. Reyk _YO! 06:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the article, Mosaic is further development of Professional Composer. There are reviews of Professional Composer from the mid to late 80s (eg. in MacWorld magazine). Mosaic (or Composer's Mosaic) seems to be early 90s release (~~short news~~ advert about Mosaic 1.0 in December 1992 MacWorld). This explains lack of easy to find online sources (too common name doesn´t help in this regard). I will try to improve the article... Pavlor (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just ended the first part of the article rewrite (about Professional Composer). Best source I used is big review in February 1986 issue of Macworld magazine, but I´m sure similar reviews could be found in other Mac magazines too. My preliminar search shows at least two reviews for early version of Mosaic (Keyboard magazine, February 1993 p. 146; MacUser magazine (Gruberman, Ken), volume 8, number 10 (October 1992), p. (~~83-84~~85), but these aren´t available online and I´m not able to get them. There are also mentions or short paragraphs about Mosaic in books devoted to Mac and computer music in general (at least in Google books preview). Pavlor (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another two reviews:

Whitney, Ross (December 1998). "Composer's Mosaic". Notes. 55 (2): 436–438. ISSN 0027-4380.
Mark of the Unicorn's Composer's Mosaic (Mac). Electronic Musician, January 1993. (only database entry, not direct citation)

So... there are at least 4 reviews of Mosaic in published media, one of them in (probably?) peer reviewed academic journal. Should be enough to demonstrate notability. However, I don´t have access to these, so my rewrite of the article must rely on previews and other lower quality sources. Pavlor (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources (albeit hard to find...). Pavlor (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewrite done. There is not much to add now (well, native speaker should correct my Czenglish... if the article is kept of course). Pavlor (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an abandoned product but it looks like it was notable in its day. In addition to the sources that the article currently has, I found this review in an academic journal from 1993 and a comment about the program for the DMCA anti-circumvention exemption process in 2006 (see Digital Millennium Copyright Act#Anti-circumvention exemptions. This tells me that this is a sufficiently important and well-documented part of music notation software history that we should keep the article. The article should probably be renamed to Composer's Mosaic to fit WP:CRITERIA better. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:30, 30 July 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 under G7 since the author has requested deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheorry (single)[edit]

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

Incorrect spelling of article title Jamiehino (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- this would qualify for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7._Author_requests_deletion, and I suggest @Jamiehino: to do that. Reyk _YO! 06:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 28 July 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) 19:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aon Abbas Buppi[edit]

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

Promotional stuff. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete doesn't meets WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 09:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico International[edit]

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

Non-notable badminton tournament. Relies on a results database for references. Lack of GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the highest level international tournament held in the country and is sanctioned by the Badminton World Federation and Badminton Continental Confederation. The tournament is similar to comparable events in tennis, or golf for instance. Additionally, there are enough sources here to pass GNG. Looking at some of the winners shows that the tournament clearly attracts some very good players. In comparison (stated in Wikipedia:Notability_(events)), College bowl games (not limited to BCS or College Football Playoff bowl games, see e.g. 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games) or All-star or similar exhibition games are notable. The mentioned article for deletion above is of much bigger relevance than the cited college games. Additionally, similar events were already discussed in detail, with all of them as result Keep. Florentyna (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Florentyna. Stvbastian (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. We already discussed this. They're notable. Nothing's changed. This is getting out of hand. Smartyllama (talk) 14:48, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 09:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei Open (badminton)[edit]

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

Non-notable badminton tournament. Unreferenced, and thus there is a lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the highest level international tournament held in the country and is sanctioned by the Badminton World Federation and Badminton Continental Confederation. The tournament is similar to comparable events in tennis, or golf for instance. Additionally, there are enough sources here to pass GNG. Looking at some of the winners shows that the tournament clearly attracts some very good players. In comparison (stated in Wikipedia:Notability_(events)), College bowl games (not limited to BCS or College Football Playoff bowl games, see e.g. 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games) or All-star or similar exhibition games are notable. The mentioned article for deletion above is of much bigger relevance than the cited college games. In 2002, this tournament was the first Grand-Prix-Tournament in Latin America ever, i.e. part of the highest tournament series in badminton this time. Additionally, similar events were already discussed in detail, with all of them as result Keep. Florentyna (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Florentyna. Stvbastian (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major tournament. This was discussed already. Nothing's changed. Enough. Smartyllama (talk) 14:43, 2 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 keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 11:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1998 World Badminton Grand Prix[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was the highest level tournament series world wide sanctioned by the Badminton World Federation in the respective years. The tournament is comparable to events in tennis like Grand Slam (tennis) or ATP World Tour Masters 1000 (something in importance between both events). Florentyna (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Florentyna. Stvbastian (talk) 01:41, 2 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. bd2412 T 03:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Giese[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, which is based almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable ones: of the ten sources here, four are Q&A-style interviews where she's talking about something other than herself and thus fails to be the subject of the coverage; two are "staff" profiles on the websites of her agent and a media organization she's worked for; two are directories of her writings for other publications she's contributed to; and one is the Google Books entry for her book. None of these constitute the kind of coverage required to get a person over WP:JOURNALIST at all — but the only source here that actually meets the reliable sourcing requirements, by virtue of being third party coverage about her, is (a) covering her in the context of buying a house with her partner, not in the context of a notable career accomplishment, and (b) still in a publication that she's contributed to in the past, which thus isn't fully independent of her. As always, a journalist does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because she can be nominally verified as existing — but neither the substance nor the sourcing here demonstrates that she meets the standards necessary to qualify for one. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – With no independent sources cited, the article doesn't show that she's notable. KSFT ^(t|c) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News personality, writer and host of events, sources here. Source here (writer as personality), she's in the story here, she is profiled and interviewed here, she's interviewed here, in sum a keeper people, meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find any sources with significant coverage that are independent of her? Most seem to be either written by her or interviews with her. KSFT ^(t|c) 23:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Giese was simply a reporter, writing stories, with a byline, then I'd agree that she would probably not be notable. But the thing is that Giese, herself, is often the story -- her viewpoints clearly identified with her -- and she's an important columnist, which is why Giese is interviewed in other media, not just one or two publications, but many, such as the Edmonton Journal here. Like, she's quoted in other publications about other news personalities; her views are quoted here too. Not only that, but her personal life is chronicled as well. That is, she's an important news and commentator in Canada's largest city. Another source here. A multi-faceted media personality according to the Globe and Mail (a WP:RS) which wrote that "...executive director Rachel Giese, a visible media figure in Toronto (a former Xtra features editor, board member for This Magazine, CBC producer, guest host on the Newsworld show counterSpin, and Toronto Star columnist). She is heading up a film festival that, she agrees, is in excellent shape...". Remember I'm not commenting on the current state of the Wikipedia article which I haven't really looked at much, just on her notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - A journalist gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough media coverage about her to clear WP:GNG, not by merely being quoted giving soundbite about her views on other subjects or by having her name mentioned in coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like being the subject here and being the subject here too, stuff like that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Stuff like very much not that. Link #1 is an article in the Homes section about her buying a house, in a newspaper she's been a contributor to — so it has exactly nothing to do with making her notable as a journalist, because it is a non-independent source whose primary reason for existing is that she's a personal friend of the writer, and not because anything related to journalism. Link #2 is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about something other than herself — a class of sourcing which can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by better sources, but cannot be a bringer of GNG in its own right. Try again, because neither of those cut the mustard at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure they're good sources. So is this one here -- and why do sources have to talk about her as a journalist, when she has many other roles, such as being a mother, a home buyer, and so forth? What's important is that she's getting substantial coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Because being a mother and a home buyer are not notability claims that a person gets a Wikipedia article for. To count toward establishing that she passes GNG, a source has to be covering her in the context of something that passes a notability criterion. And no, that CBC clip isn't a notability-assisting source either — again, she's the interviewee and not the subject of the source. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources are of insufficient depth, mostly soundbites and interviews, as in:

"It is a modern moral dilemma: should you monitor your kid's online life? Matt Galloway spoke with Rachel Giese, she is a Toronto journalist and mother with a 13-year-old son. Her article, "Minor Infractions", was published by Real Life Magazine."

These types of sources are WP:SPIP rather than independent. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ampelocalamus scandens[edit]

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

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

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

Singular unnotable species, delete or redirect to Bamboo — IVORK _Discuss 04:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved: header issue — IVORK _Discuss 06:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, if it's got a valid classification and has not molested the mayor's daughter, it's notable. These sub-stubs just need a little sprucing up (taxobox, at minimum) to join the vast ranks of other species stubs we are perfectly happy to have. I'll see to it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did the minimum for Ampelocalamus scandens, will do the others in an hour or so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Plantdrew. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator just claims without explanation that these well-documented species are not notable. That is not a sufficient basis for deleting articles about species which are discussed in peer-reviewed articles such as "MA, Yu-dong, et al. "The Anatomical Characters of the Endemic and Critically Endangered Bamboo Species——Ampelocalamus scandens and Drepanostachyum luodianense in Guizhou Province." Journal of Mountain Agriculture and Biology 1 (2012): 004." You can find many such articles by clicking the "Scholar" button at the top of this AFD. Only if an article is about a species which lacks scholarly documentation, such as one claimed to exist by an unqualified hobbyist,or some crypto-bio animal seen only in a grainy video is the article deleted, in general. On the one extreme WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES discussing common outcomes of AFD says "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD." That means simply that there is a place for the information about the species in Wikipedia, not that a stand=alone article is the appropriate way to cover it. And I do not agree with the circular logic of citing "common outcomes" as a formal notability guideline, which it is not. But it is a reality check as to the futility of trying to delete articles of a sort which never get deleted. At a more important level, WP:N does not stipulate that every notable subject MUST have a standalone article. See WP:NOPAGE. There are subject-specific guidelines for music, books, sports, people and 17 other topics, but I see none for species. Merger into a more general article, where the topic receives an appropriate amount of coverage, is always a possibility but this is "Articles for DELETION," not "Articles for MERGER." If you want to merge articles about subspecies into a main article, then instead of AFD you should use the process described in detail at Wikipedia:Merging. Edison (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. These taxa exist, and the stubs have references. The articles are certainly in need of improvment though (I've add taxoboxes and categories to the two Acidosasa species listed in the nomination). Plantdrew (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The species seems to be notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, and the nominator has not explained why they don't think it is. KSFT ^(t|c) 20:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The species already has sources that attribute it in the article, and that's all this needs in terms of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There's no way this article be deleted or redirected with that in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farzad Houshidari[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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 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 04:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – They seem to meet WP:NHOCKEY#1. KSFT ^(t|c) 04:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC) After reading the article and notability criteria more carefully, I retract this vote. KSFT ^(t|c) 19:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate why you believe he's played at the highest level of his sport. There's no evidence he played in a league that criteria #1 applies to. See WP:NHOCKEY/LA for the relevant leagues. Papaursa (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He definitely doesn't meet the notability criteria for ice hockey players. Assuming the inline criteria are the same, he hasn't competed at the highest level there, either. The article claims he competed at the 2011 and 2016 FIRS inline world championships. The problem is that the FIRS championships are only held in odd numbered years and that Iran did not qualify for the top level of the 2011 championships. Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one article could be found. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:51, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Kerbouche[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) 00:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 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, Winged Blades^Godric 04:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article is promotional, and the subject doesn't seem to meet any relevant notability guidelines. KSFT ^(t|c) 04:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:46, 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 redirect to Sea salt. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black lava salt[edit]

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

unreferenced, blatant advert Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rolled back the expansion by 107.142.156.143 (talk · contribs) that changed it from a stub article to an advertisement. I've no idea if it is trademarked as the ip asserts. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sea salt. Unlikely there's information for a separate article. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding book references sufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. For example, here at p. 177. And somewhat briefer, but similar here. And here at p. 244, a description contrasting this salt with other types. There are numerous cookbook references to recipes using this salt as an ingedient, as well. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sea Salt and include any usable information there. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so does not need seperate entries on every term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea salt. Does not merit its own article, it is hard to imagine this ever being more than a dictionary definition. Malinaccier (talk) 00:30, 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kurland[edit]

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

Article contains no references (at all) and probably for a reason: a Google search turns up his home website, multiple Facebook accounts, LinkedIn, Amazon.com listings of his books for sale, evidence of being the recipient of two non-notable awards (what's an Edgar scroll?), more evidence of books he has published, and this Wikipedia article. What I did not find was non-trivial discussion of him in multiple reliable independent secondary published sources; a publication history does not confer notability, and WP:AUTHOR does not look like it has been nor can be met. KDS4444 (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Edgar thing appears to be referring to the Edgar Award, which is a fairly notable award except that Kurland has never actually won it; what he's got two of is nominations (Best Paperback Original, 1970 and 1980). Which is of course not quite as good for notability purposes. — Paul A (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A prolific, well-known journeyman writer who published mostly prior to the Internet. His sf was renewed regularly in genre magazines as well as in Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, and the Chicago Daily News. His recent mysteries have s similar level of coverage. PW site shows about a dozen reviews in the last decade or so. The coverage is out there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 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 04:13, 28 July 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 00:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mher Khachatryan (artist)[edit]

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

There is a claim for notability, but the only criteria that allows him to pass WP:CREATIVE is being part of Armenian National Gallery and here is the problem. The article does not even mentions him being part of the collection and more, it's just about some group exhibition held in the gallery. Other sources are not enough to establish notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reason for nomination is moot - the National Gallery of Armenia does not collect contemporary artists. The most current artist mentioned in the gallery collection is Aram Isabekyan (b. 1952).[28] Other, contemporary sources clearly point to notability. Manc1234 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manc1234, Beside National Gallery of Armenia, and in case you are right, the information in article is intentionally wrong, there is no any other point, that may get him passing WP:ARTISTS. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorian1977, it does not benefit the encyclopedia to remove an article about a subject relevant to contemporary art couched in Armenian history. Khachatryan may not be the next Picasso, but he's producing and exhibiting work that encyclopedia users may see in the real world and want further context about. I believe in this instance, we should make an exception for the collection rule on WP:CREATIVE. Manc1234 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manc1234 It's not the case of benefit or not. There are rules, but there is a common sense as well. In his case, both rules and common sense tell he is not notable. Collection is just one of criteria of WP:CREATIVE. In order to pass, artist may meet only one of those criterias, but unfortunaltely he does not meet a single one. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorian1977, I've added a notability flag and I suggest we seek out Armenian experts before a final decision is made. There is a lot of content about Khachatryan on non-English language pages.Manc1234 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to change my mind in case there will be enough Armenian references, but for an Artist, living and working in USA for almost 15 years, I'd expect to see some English references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article claims his work have been exhibited in National Gallery of Armenia, but I red the reference provided in it's Russian version and it does not mention him as one of participants.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Khachatryan has also appeared on many Armenian TV shows discussing his work: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] Manc1234 (talk) 02:27, 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 04:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on the sources (or lack of) that are cited in the article. They do not indicate notability and most are not RS: many (such as the artprize ones) are self-penned by the subject or (like the ArtSlant and miamitalentmag ones) are substantially text supplied by the subject or (like the vanderplasgallery one) have a commercial connection to the subject. Where are neutral RS independent reviews of the subject's work or sources in specialist publications? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:02, 29 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Denman[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) 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. It might be worth taking a more comprehensive approach here; there are lots of articles about Australian hockey players, almost none of whom meet NHOCKEY. All articles about an Australian who's only played in Australia should just be PRODed instead of brought to AFD (since the AIHL doesn't appear on WP:NHOCKEY/LA). Madg2011 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The news anchor by the same name is more notable. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:46, 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. While Jessup may receive significant, third-party coverage in the future, he currently does not receive the coverage necessary to satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Consensus is to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Jessup[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO: the independent coverage is limited to one article in a local newspaper, which is an insufficient basis for an encyclopedia article. Rentier (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. - TheMagnificentist 12:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:38, 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 under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahida Parides[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Brand does not seem to have gotten detailed coverage as such. The references are just to photos of celebrities wearing it, but there is no detailed commentary on the brand, sometimes the brand isn't even mentioned. GRuban (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Article consists of name checks of the celebrities that wore its products, as well as a section on "Affiliate Program". Article created and extensively edited by various SPAs, including (apparently) by the company itself: Special:Contributions/Shahida_Parides. I'll request a G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments to keep the article have demonstrated that Paymentwall has received significant coverage by third-party sources so that the subject meets the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Additional concerns that the article is "too promotional" to keep have been addressed through edits by Northamerica1000 and can be continued to be improved through editing. Overall consensus based on policy is to keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paymentwall[edit]

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

Only purpose is to promote it. Corporate Spam to its soul. Adweek article is poor as the article itself. Press coverage are given as a references. Corporate brochure written into encyclopedia. should be G11 material. Light2021 (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Curda, Pavel (2015-11-01). "Startups in Ukraine: More than just a war zone or outsourcing hub". he:Geektime. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Paymentwall, is a payment platform for games, virtual goods, and web services available in 200 countries [and territories] with $2 billion in revenue. It started out from a cooperation of the American Honor Gunday and the Ukrainian Vladimir Kovalyov. Now it faces a prospect of pursuing an IPO within 3-5 years.
  This is analysis about Paymentwall from Andrey Kolodyuk from Aventures Capital in Ukraine.
2. Wirminghaus, Niklas (2015-10-14). "Ist er der schlimmste Chef der Startup-Welt?" [Is he the worst boss of the startup world?]. Gründerszene (in German). Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  From Google Translate:
  The CEO of a payment startup [Paymentwall] dismisses 25 employees in Kyiv and announces this joyfully to Facebook. A bizarre story about leadership failure in series.
  ...
  But apparently, the conditions in the office in Kiev are anything but paradisiacal. The leadership methods of Honor Gunday (bourgeois: Onur Sena Gunday), the founder and CEO of the payment company, launched in 2010 and headquartered in San Francisco, and having a Berlin office since 2012, seem to fit into a Stone Age dictatorship rather than one Modern digital startup. This picture emerges from reports from employees, reporting in Ukraine - and the attempts at justifying the company itself.
3. Sysoyev, Yevgen (2014-10-21). "Six global high tech success stories from Ukraine". Ukraine Digital News. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Paymentwall was founded in April 2010 by Turk Honor Gunday and Ukrainian Vladimir Kovalyov. Success did not come right away, as they suffered several setbacks prior to Paymentwall. The Turkish social network Zurna was closed by court order, Boomerang Networks, which was an advertising platform for online games, collapsed as a result of disagreements with the investor, and the virtual startup accelerator OutCubator simply “did not go.” But the payment service Paymentwall, which was launched for $200, began to generate profits only a few months after it launched. Last year, the company’s revenue totaled dozens of million US dollars.
  The main clients of the company have been and are the owners of online games and web portals with premium options, such as dating sites, online cloud services, and online games. Paymentwall allows users around the globe to purchase digital content using any of 85+ local payment systems, including various types of payment like credit cards, mobile phones, ATMs, terminals, and many others. According to Kovalev, more than 30,000 clients already use Paymentwall, from young game developers, for whom parents sign their first contract, to multinational corporations.
  The company’s solutions are available in more than 20 languages and 200 countries. Paymentwall maintains 10 offices around the globe, including locations like Berlin, Kyiv (Kiev), San Francisco, Istanbul, and Manila.
4. Jozi, Alireza (2016-04-15). "Paymentwall Enabling International Payment For Iran?". TechRasa. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Though the recent nuclear deal has caused the sanctions on Iran and its banking system to be lifted but US sanctions are still in place. This announcement was rather shocking considering the fact that Paymentwall is a San Fransisco based company with an only possibility of engaging with Iran from one of their subsidiaries or offices outside of US. Most european sanctions on Iran has been lifted but not sanctions imposed by the US are still in place. The US banking system is still not open to Iran and so is the possibility for most American companies to work with Iran. Making it almost impossible for Paymentwall to come to Iran on the red carpet.
  ...
  Paymentwall’s announcement on expanding to Iran created a wide press buzz. More interestingly the company removed their official press release post on Iran from their website and social media overnight. Which could be an identification of a step back from the company. Many questions are popping up as what was the cause of this act. Perhaps the possibility of a security threats to the company exists because of the US sanctions. Nonetheless news from payment companies to operate in Iran are becoming a trend.
  This article notes that "Paymentwall's announcement on expanding to Iran created a wide press buzz" and provides skeptical analysis of Paymentwall's announcement
5. Takahashi, Dean (2014-11-06). "Paymentwall launches a payment suite for smart TVs so you can buy with your remote control — or smartphone". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Paymentwall was founded in 2010, and it has 110 employees. It says it has processed payments for more than 150 million unique users across more than 50,000 merchants. Rivals include Braintree (part of PayPal), Apple Pay, Stripe, Boku, and Adyen. Paymentwall is self-funded. It started as an alternative offer-wall provider when Facebook gaming was thriving. Paymentwall set up a technology platform that would enable the developers to accept not just credit cards and mobile payments but other solutions like prepaid cards, digital currencies, and eWallets.
6. Winegarner, Beth (2015-04-03). "Paymentwall Accused In Latest Silicon Valley Sex-Bias Suit". Law360. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
7. "Paymentwall 'not connected' to Iranian banking system". Mehr News Agency. 2016-04-18. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Central Bank of Iran has rejected the claim by San Francisco-based Paymentwall that it has integrated its payment services into Shetab - Iran’s local payment system.
8. Nan, Wu (2015-05-11). "China a gold mine for online payment platform system companies". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Foreign companies also see opportunities in China, with Paymentwall, a global monetisation platform founded in California in 2010, opening its 10th foreign office in Beijing recently.
  ...
  The company first helped game companies get payments through Facebook, and now has about 200 million users.
  ...
  Paymentwall began working with Chinese video game makers and social networks such as NetEase, Tencent andrenren.com from 2011. It has also partnered Alipay to help foreign internet companies enter the Chinese market.
9. Мозговая, Анна (2012-07-03). "Офис недели (Киев): Paymentwall". The Village (in Russian). ru:Look At Media. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  From Google Translate:
  Paymentwall Company provides a global payment platform for payment of virtual goods in social networks, online games and Internet services. All four offices of the company - in San Francisco, Berlin, Istanbul and Kiev - have a common interior concept. Designer furniture, yellow walls, disco-balls and music create a cozy atmosphere. A large coin inlaid with gold is a symbol of the company.
10. Sheremeta, Bozhena (2015-07-08). "Global online payments company building on Kyiv roots". Kyiv Post. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Paymentwall is a global payment service provider for game development companies, software as a service (SaaS) providers, dating sites, TV streaming providers, and news organizations (such as the Kyiv Post).
  The company is headquartered in San Francisco and has 10 offices around the world. It serves 70,000 merchants in more than 200 countries.
11. Jordan, Jon (2014-11-06). "80 currencies, 120 payment options, Paymentwall looks to monetise smart TVs". Pocket Gamer. Archived from the original on 2017-07-22. Retrieved 2017-07-22.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Paymentwall to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with Cunard that there is sufficient coverage for notability in a range of reliable independent sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence of WP:BEFORE D1 searches in the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this countering the nomination's valid basis for "Only purpose is to promote it and G11 material"? That in fact would violate our WP:Deletion policy since it in indeed confirms promotion is deleted, not salvaged. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel that the nom feels that notability is not a problem here, and that there is therefore no need for me to draw attention to notability. And you have the personal view that notability is not at issue. But if you look again, you will see that the nomination mentions "references", yet fails to show that the references are a problem that needs the attention of the community. So we are back to WP:BEFORE D1. And the long list of references that Cunard found.

Is there promotion in this article that is not fixable? Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since notability is not the only thing of attention here, but instead it's promotionalism, see Paymentwall, is a payment platform for games, virtual goods, and web services available in 200 countries [and territories] with $2 billion in revenue. It started out from a cooperation of the American Honor Gunday and the Ukrainian Vladimir Kovalyov. Now it faces a prospect of pursuing an IPO within 3-5 years (regardless if the information was from someone uninvolved in the company, because it's the contents that matter and these are promotional), Paymentwall was founded in April 2010 by Turk Honor Gunday and Ukrainian Vladimir Kovalyov....The main clients of the company have been and are the owners of online games and web portals with premium options, such as dating sites, online cloud services, and online games. Paymentwall allows users around the globe to purchase digital content using any of 85+ local payment systems, including various types of payment like credit cards, mobile phones, ATMs, terminals, and many others. According to Kovalev, more than 30,000 clients already use Paymentwall, from young game developers, for whom parents sign their first contract, to multinational corporations. The company's solutions are available....and maintains offices in...." (it wouldn't matter that this article contains one unshown controversy because the setting is still company overview advertising which is unacceptable), 4 is from a trade tech publication which is simply a general news report, something WP:ORGIND says cannot be accepted.Paymentwall was founded in 2010, and it has 110 employees. It says it has processed payments for more than 150 million unique users across more than 50,000 merchants. Rivals include Braintree (part of PayPal), Apple Pay, Stripe, Boku, and Adyen. Paymentwall is self-funded. It started as an alternative offer-wall provider when Facebook gaming was thriving. Paymentwall set up a technology platform that would enable the developers to accept not just credit cards and mobile payments but other solutions like...." (Instant violations of WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Promotion), 7 is another general news report, Paymentwall Company provides a global payment platform for payment of virtual goods in social networks, online games and Internet services. All four offices of the company - in San Francisco, Berlin, Istanbul and Kiev - have a common interior concept. Designer furniture, yellow walls, disco-balls and music create a cozy atmosphere. A large coin inlaid with gold is a symbol of the company. (once again a company overview announcement), Paymentwall, a global monetisation platform founded in California in 2010, opening its 10th foreign office in Beijing recently. Paymentwall began working with Chinese video game makers and social networks such as...." (not only contains named-mentions but offers nothing but a mirror image "About Us"), Paymentwall is a global payment service provider for game development companies, software as a service (SaaS) providers, dating sites, TV streaming providers, and news organizations (such as [this publication company]), The company is headquartered in San Francisco and has 10 offices around the world. It serves 70,000 merchants in more than 200 countries. (showing it's not only a company customer, but it's literally republishing what the company's own "About" is, therefore violating WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Not webhost, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Promotion, wherever published), 11 is a republished announcement in a clear "business interest" section therefore indiscriminate. While the company's income is a significant factor, our priorities are far higher in maintaining encyclopedia integrity, not becoming a company advertiser. By actually suggesting that we compromise with keeping it without assurance it will be advertising-free is not a policy basis, in fact it's a WP:ITSVALUABLE or WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please concise your arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the promotionalism here has a bigger outweigh than any of the few benefits, and this is shown by other available sources, see News search: to start, 1 is a press release, 2 is an indiscriminate announcement as are the additional 3 following, 5th is then a labeled press release, 6 is a circumstantial lawsuit (from 2015, that is), 7-14 are back to announcements in various publishers and places, some are in German, English and some are in local business or trade journals, therefore the logic here is that the company is responsible for motivating such attention. The only sensible thing here is to consider them all indiscriminate announcements or notices since that's what the founded basis is in all of them; the only suitable place for that is where publishers accept them such as news websites, but after all, we're WP:Not a newspaper and that's what matters in content here, especially when such offered contents were: *"Paymentwall said....Payment can help expand....[it] presents a full page of....pay via PayPal, credit cards, mobile payments....The company now has 75 differnt options....[They] have added partnerships in...." and, especially blatant is this unhidden of a republished press release here or the next one:
"By collaborating with Paymentwall...." and then "....shopping experience in [Europe] is now more convenient....", or "....comprehensive 150+ payment methods....easy payment....", "announced that Paymentwall....available in....200 countries....", "Paymentwall is hoping....". Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different than the exhaustive analysis by the Delete side which shows this fits WP:Deletion policy's criteria of "do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed"? WP:CORP itself says the WP:Deletion policy is a priority that must be met before any articles are considered. Is there supposed to be an exception for technology companies of interest? For example, one of the Keeps consists of only a "no evidence of searches" yet promotionalism is a criteria in WP:Deletion policy for deletion, therefore not relevant if searches were made or not. As WP:Articles for deletion says, votes must be strongly based in policy and especially address any relevant concerns. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article and discussion on its talk page. Cherry picking quotes from news articles does not represent the full perspective and content of those articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do improve the article but, remember, that any rewordings or similar is not what WP:Copyediting supports in establishing notability (WP:N). Also, as for the comments, they were not cherry-picked, but literally what each paragraph started with, in those relevant articles. Therefore, the fact any immediate connections to the company were shown, shows it's not actually independent, or else they wouldn't mirror each other. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may perform improvements if the article is retained. I hesitate to spend my time and energy performing work that may be subsequently deleted. Also, AfD is not cleanup. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, as WP:GNG says, articles must be in a presently acceptable condition to be accepted or else there wouldn't be any proven needs of an article. Also, the AfdIsNotCleanup, actually begins with the openly clear statement: upon the issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy...It is important when taking part in deletion discussions to anchor one's rationale in relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as notability, verifiability, what Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view which is what the nomination began with; also, to quote again that page, it says As problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability. Whereas, AfDisNotCleanup is a minor essay, WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Deletion policy are accepted policies overall. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking quotes from news articles does not represent the full perspective and content of those articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG. See, for example, THIS ARTICLE from bankingtech.com and THIS from bankinnovation.net. Spammy tone is an editing matter; I chopped out one egregiously promotional section. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can that be if GNG was quoted above with An article is presumed to be notable if it's excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia is not (policy). To examine your sources, the first is:
"San Francisco-based Paymentwall has integrated....says , payment project manager at Paymentwall....Paymentwall says that....Paymentwall says that as...."We will allow", they say....Reference: Paymentwall Facebook page."
"Paymentwall announced on April 12....A company official told....Honor Gunday, who heads business development.....[They] see the potential....Payment wall has appealed...."

As by WP:GNG, it says multiple independent reliable coverage independent of the subject and if that's what offers here, it's not acceptable, regardless if we mistakenly consider it as such. As for the "Spammy tone is an editing matter", the WP:Deletion policy says: Any material unsuitable for an encyclopedia article must be removed. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply for the record, to add since users are suggesting here the article can easily be remedied and changed into better, the time of this AfD has shown no significant changes from this (AfD nomination) and now here. As one of our guides says, as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability and WP:GNG: Articles must be in an improved state to qualify. In fact, take cases like this where, instead of removing a promotional paragraph, only 1 part of it was removed.
Or cases like this were the article wasn't actually improved, but instead: The official website was re-jacketed into a different form.

As our WP:What Wikipedia is not policy, says listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and, so if the article can't be fundamentally improved beyond that, it has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. As our WP:Five pillars say, visitors should expect a serious neutral and independent encyclopedia, not one where companies are expected or given exemptions, simply because of general or special interests. As our WP:Deletion policy says, articles that are potentially of concern can be tagged, yet the history here shows such tags are quickly removed, this goes against our WP:TC guidelines on maintenance, and that only shows the article would be hindered from attempts to de-spam, if it's even happening as the AfD is ongoing. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the "listings" content above in bold, it is taken out of context. The full text is located here, which is prefaced by Simple listings without context information.... The article does not contain simple listings without context information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Context wouldn't matter since what the sources say are primary words, thus saying whatever they please; that, in that aspect of Independence, is not the context we need. Press releases could be considered by some as context yet we never accept those in Notability or anything. How else can this be interpreted differently but that? The highlight I showed above explicitly said that any of those things typically found in a press release (employees, finances, sales, products, etc.) thus it actually speaks quite clearly. The same thing can be said for a local Yellow pages; it can be considered as context yet we never accept it. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will try to improve the article over the day. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to improve it but of course keep to mind, that direly important changes are needed; especially since it can't be guaranteed this won't be renominated later. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Sturrock[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 Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 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]

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:35, 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 delete. Deleting as a soft deletion given the lack of comments in two AFD cycles. Malinaccier (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Byers (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) 10:36, 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) 10:37, 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 04:05, 28 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Thilthorpe[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) 10:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 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 04:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Madg2011 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. I found a man who on bail for running over a man by the same name, though. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So You Think You Can Dance - Yalla Nerkos![edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:36, 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 04:00, 28 July 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rade Lončar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE for WP:NHOOPS NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:56, 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 03:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NHOOPS, which the nominator cited, Lončar is presumed notable because he played at least one game for KK Vojvodina Srbijagas, which was a part of the ABA League in the former Yugoslavia. Nomader (talk) 17:05, 28 July 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 02:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose: As the youngest deputy leader of any political party in the UK and probably a lot further afield. I think this makes him a person of interest that Is suitable for Wikipedia. As his role develops in the coming months and years, they'll be plenty more to add to it I'm sure

Oppose: This article has enough information and sources to be on Wikipedia. This guy has done some things, I don't think it should be deleted right now. 74.108.224.146 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being deputy leader of a political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in its own right — it can be enough if they can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not a freebie that exempts a person from having to be reliably sourced. And being the youngest holder of an otherwise non-notable political role isn't an inclusion freebie either — Wikipedia's notability criteria are based solely on what the achievement is, and accord no special weight to the age at which somebody achieved it. But of the five footnotes here, three are primary sources, one is a university student newspaper (a class of sourcing that can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off, but does not count toward GNG in and of itself), and the only one that's an acceptable reliable source is a purely routine list of all the candidates in a by-election he ran in. So no, the article does not have enough sources to be on Wikipedia. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it better than this, but none of the sources here are good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be notable one day, but there is currently no in-depth coverage I can find in reliable independent sources. Warofdreams talk 22:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this should be a keep but the lack of any references demonstrating notability is an enormous stumbling block. It says something for this party and its leaders that nobody seems to have written about them in a reliable and indepedent source. I will see if I can find something to change my opinion in the next few days. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. I am for keeping biographies of party leaders on an automatic basis, but this is a deputy leader. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPolitician and GNG together doth work against the BLP. Am interested to see if Velella finds anything. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:36, 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 keep. As the predominant emotion prevalent in this Afd has been of Weak Keep, I'm closing this as a Keep, albeit a weak one. I would suggest at least six months (and evident discussions on the talk page of the article about the strength of sources) to give time for improving the article before a deletion renomination is attempted. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Allred[edit]

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

clearly a promo puff piece, already deleted once for copyright violation and unambiguous advertising. I have trawled through the sources and they do not support notability. Sources 1: Blog 2: linkedin 3: blog 4: list of members 5: puff piece article that claims she was an olympian which is not true 6: goodreads 7: passing mention from 1994 8: book written by subject 9: article posted by the subject about herself 10: affiliated source 11: advocacy blog 12: does not mention the subject 13: blog from her group's web site 14: self published promo piece 15: ibid 11 16: doesn't mention the subject 17: amazon vendor page 18: amazon vendor page 19: goodreads Domdeparis (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this topic was already deleted for being promotional before, I'm not sure how it was a copyright infringement. I never saw that page so I am not sure how it differs from this but I was asked to write this page without any foreknowledge of the subject for the express purpose that it wouldn't be promotional. With that being said I don't have a vested interest in this article I just want the facts to be available.

Everything I wrote has been sourced from a reputable website that I researched.

Most of the sources are primary to ensure accuracy. The descriptions you provided below are a little condensed, especially #7 the sports illustrated article, that's not a passing mention the whole second half of the article is on the 1994 national team and their respective experience and qualifying times. #5 is from Epoch Times, and the statement I cited is about her current occupational positions I specifically never say that she is an Olympian because she's not (from what I've gathered she was on the Olympic team but never competed but because of the lack of reputable sources on that I never mention it in that context, what I do know is in the sports illustrated article see above about #7). #10 is the Earth Justice website, I'm not sure how that makes it an affiliated source. #11 is a Huffington Post article not advocacy affiliated. #12 is the list of schools from the USA Today article to verify the claim. #13 is the group's website not a blog entry and is there to verify their existence as an organization. #14 is a link to the book that was referenced in the statement as it was posted on Earth Justice's website.

According to the guidelines for notability of creative professionals this subject meets the requirements there especially the third criteria, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The subject has authored many books and one had a film being discussed. She was the subject of a PBS documentary. She's been featured as an expert in countless articles and contributed to textbooks in addition to her own fiction novels.

As far as the list of policies goes that would warrant deletion, this article is not advertising in any way it was specifically written to be from a neutral point of view and all of the evidence provided is verifiable. Many things were not included for that reason alone.

I appreciate all the work you've put into editing this and looking at the citations and writing. I would be happy to change whatever will make it more credible but I think some of your comments are dismissive.

Please let me know how I can fix this to support notability. Thank you Lmgc1078 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)LMGC1078[reply]

I don't think any of my comments are dismissive but the sources do not support notability. You need to read WP:RS I think to undersatnd the difference between primary and other sources. If there are "countless" articles I would suggest that you add them as they are sorely missing from the article. When you say she has been featured as an expert in these articles I really don't know what you mean. If you are claiming notability as an author the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" have to be about her work. The books that she has published are self-published and could not be in all honesty described as "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". You really should read what constitutes, as per WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the sources meet this definition. #10 is clearly affiliated as she is named as an ambassador of the organisation. #11 is a blog on huff post written by Marcia G. Yerman and her profile [34] states "She writes for Moms Clean Air Force, bringing visibility to the issue of clean air and environmental concerns" and "Yerman was co-founder of cultureID, a platform dedicated to a nexus of culture and activism". The article is not overly promotional or I would have tagged it for speedy delete; the language has been toned down since the first article but taking into account the lack of reliable sources to prove notability the fact that your's is a WP:SPA that has been created to specifically write this article point inexorably to a promo piece for a non-notable person as per WP guidelines aimed at improving her visibility. If you were asked to write this piece you are clearly a WP:COI editor and or a WP:PAID editor, if this is the case you must WP:DISCLOSE the person who asked you to write the article. Domdeparis (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did sound from my comment like I have a conflict of interest but I do not. The daughter mentioned on a forum that hers got deleted for being promotional so I went to write one without having any relationship with them so that it would be just facts that I could verify by more than one source.

Thank you for checking though.Lmgc1078 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)LMGC1078[reply]

I've added more sources to show notability including several national magazine articles and non fiction books in which she is featured as an expert as I previously mentioned. They are all articles about her works in fitness and writing.Lmgc1078 (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)LMGC1078[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roseohioresident (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of explaining why you are !voting keep? Domdeparis (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Based on sources here but that said, this article is bloated, with lots of boring pushing-it information, so it really needs to be trimmed down substantially -- get rid of the sources, stick with the references, write from them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent research by Tomwsulcer but clean up. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. If the subject is notable, the article stays, even if it's in terrible shape. That should be the only issue here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: I hope you don't think I'm being uncharitable but all they did was type in her name into a search engine and post the results of the search that threw up exactly 6 individual results (not counting the translated articles into french) and has made no comments about what they found. As you have not specifically mentioned the results I'm not sure that you had the time to look at them but 1 is a mention of her name in a list of students. 1, the Epoch times, claims that she was an Olympian (false) that she was named USOC athlete of the year 1994 (false see [35] so not sure this could be called a WP:RS. Another article by the same writer on the same site just cites her among a number of people quoted about drinking coffee. In the articles "is it ok to hit a woman" and "5 unique ways of using the treadmill" she was just 1 of a half dozen fitness instructors that were quoted. The healthline article is a quote from her and it repeats the misleading pr blurb from her website. So I am not sure this is "excellent research" to be honest. The article needs cleaning up but that is not my problem it is that the sources do not prove notability and the origanal article creator (the subject's daughter) has solicited on a forum help in creating the article about her mother. So a clear COI problem here. Domdeparis (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, kind of agree with your viewpoint, the whole thing is rather borderline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address new developments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: This is the weakest keep !vote I've ever said-- I feel that Tomwsulcer's articles that he listed do not add to notability, to be honest, but that the NY Times mention and the HuffPo article (which may be a blog, so maybe not?) just tip the scales for me over. A thousand trivial mentions on different reliable sources have to eventually add up to something. The weakest possible endorsement to keep (but cleanup is definitely needed). Nomader (talk) 17:17, 28 July 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) 19:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Army diet[edit]

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

The references currently in this article do nothing to support any claim of notability for this fad diet. The article refers to it as a "classic" fad diet popular in the 1970s, predating the internet era, so online references may be difficult to find. A Google search turns up many references in very low quality, spammy diet sites which fail WP:RS and don't help with verifiability; hits I can find in more reliable sources tend to be passing mentions and not primarily about the diet itself. The prior AFD from 2005 brings absolutely nothing to the table in terms of either notability or verifiability. I'm open to the possibility that this was notable and popular decades ago, but at his point I conclude that it was a brief, non-notable (in the Wikipedia sense) fad that doesn't meet notability criteria. Deli nk (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 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 03:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Covered fleetingly in some unreliable sources but no significant coverage in RS that I could find. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alexbrn. This is pop-culture coverage at best, and trivial made-up BS at worst. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:15, 31 July 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 Impacts of tourism. Definitively no support for keeping the article in its current state but no consensus between redirect or deletion or even keeping or deleting the history; thus going for redirect but a redeletion of the previous versions is in order if copyvio concerns materialize Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overtourism[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOT. This is an essay-like publication and is essentially original research. Even if that could be fixed, there is no evidence that it is more than a non-notable neologism. I removed significant copyrighted text before nominating, and suspect that much of the remaining text is also copied from elsewhere, but cannot find a source. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a possible merge target could be Impacts of tourism. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And/or merge useful content into Sustainable tourism? Because a good part of the article is given over to addressing "overtourism" with sustainable practices. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn in Montreal, my concern there is twofold: we don't know which content is OR and what is reliably sourced because there are no citations in the article. The other concern is that I highly suspect that the content is copied from somewhere based on the previous version of the article. Since I can't find an additional parent source, I'm not comfortable saying that with certainty, but it gives me pause on the merging. An option could be to delete and redirect and encourage the creator to expand the content using reliable sources in their own words. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know and I'm being of little help. I do see enough Gnews results that at the very least I think Overtourism might be a valid redirect... to something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are always of help. I'd be fine with a redirect target to something. Maintaining the history here I don't think serves much of a purpose, but finding a redirect target after deletion works from my end. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Neologism and OR. E Eng 20:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge/Delete and Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as per TonyBallioni. I agree preserving the history serves no purpose but it is a valid search term so a redirect to Impacts of tourism following deletion is reasonable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a pure essay with no encyclopedic value. I don't think the term is widely-used enough to justify a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Tourism is a broad industry with almost 100 of tourism classification. Over Tourism could be identified as Mass Tourism, so I suggest it should be added to a page of Tourism as a sub section. Although, we cannot deny the fact that tourism indusrty is focussing on it already. Chrisswill (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is denying that it could serve as a useful redirect. The question is if the history should be preserved. With the potential for copyvios and the pure lack of citations, I think deleting the history before makes a lot of sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 31 July 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 speedily deleted by Basalisk per CSD G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Behlock[edit]

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

Subject isn't generally notable. I asked the author prior to creation to create a user sandbox and develop a draft article but they refused. The prior article had already been PROD'd and deleted, which is why I'm taking this to AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you perform a WP:BEFORE search? did you consider http://www.todaysoutlook.com/designers/details/joelle-behlock-nader-a-passion-for-fashion as contributing to notability? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did the BEFORE search, as I've gotten burned before. I never make deletion noms lightly. That piece is an interview, so it's not independent of the subject. I don't see a lot of notability coming from todaysoutlook.com, either. There are a handful of pieces about the subject but I don't think the bar for GNG is that low. I remind you that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Let's wait 10 or 20 years for some real coverage before we make proclamations about notability. I've written 32 articles and (with one exception) none of them have ever been nom'd for deletion because I'm careful about staying within the notability guidelines, which I think the author of this piece, in their haste, failed to do. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that as per Wikipedia:Interviews the introductory section of an interview may be reliable and secondary, and so contribute to notability. Just dismissing a source because "its an interview" is not enough. However, that source alone is not sufficient to establish notability, even if accepted as independent and secondary. Thanks for doing a BEFORE search, too many AfD nominators skip it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My AfD ratio is a horrible 68% with consensus. I'm not trying to make it worse. Thanks for pointing out INTERVIEWS; I was unaware of it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chris Troutman. - GretLomborg (talk)
Keep, normally I view beauty queen articles with suspicion, but here she has gone on to do a number of different things, and given the difficulty of finding third world sources that compare in quality to those in the first world, I think we DO have enough coverage to be adequate for GNG. Also, to say "That piece is an interview, so it's not independent of the subject" misreads the guidelines ... who is the interviewer, what media published the interview, etc... that's what matters. This is also an article tht needs a lot of work, but I think it passes muster. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Montanabw's arguments above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You need to find the sources, not just hand wave that finding sources is difficult. We do not have enough sources to pass GNG, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 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 03:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator, Amorite Mercenary, has been blocked thanks to CheckUser. I don't know if this is now eligible for CSD. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:37, 28 July 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) 19:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data intrusion[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:NEO. Searching for the term reveals use of the phrase, but not in the context discussed in the article. Article itself is unsourced and POV, but any content worth saving would probably belong at Software bloat. A412 (Talk • C) 00:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of the terminology used is simply nonsense. I believe it's just trying to describe the basic concept of hacking. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a poorly-written essay, the term is a low-usage neologism. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 4 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.

[1] Moser, Richard (1996). The New Winter Soldiers: GI and Veteran Dissent During the Vietnam Era. Rutgers University Press. p. 88. ISBN 9780813522425.

[2] Barnes, Peter (1972). Pawns: The Plight of the Citizen-soldier. Alfred A. Knopf Incorporated. p. 129. ISBN 0394436164.

[1]

[2]