Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 March	21 March >

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Johnson (wrestler)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Article created by now blocked sockpuppet. Nikki♥311 23:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with not meeting GNG. MPJ-DK 17:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.182.120 (talk • contribs)
- Would you care to elaborate on what guideline supports your statement? Or is it just a personal preference? MPJ-DK 19:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it's the IP of the sock. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's practice WP:AGF and maybe get an enlightened answer? MPJ-DK 21:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining an "enlightened answer" would require a "bright idea", and no one here appears to have one ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable wrestler.Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesh Pradyumna Divya[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 23:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched with and without the middle name, also used stage name and unable to locate anything to establish WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Wetzl[edit]

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

Fails notability compacted with its being an orphan makes it seem like i should be deleted. Snood1205 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable person and his company appears to be non-notable as well. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to locate anything in-depth to satisfy WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucha Sisters[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Individuals are notable, but the team is not. The majority of the article isn't even about their time as a team. Nikki♥311 23:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a team, reads like content copied from individual articlez. Repeating team info and a lot of items not related tontue team at. I removed the worst offending sections completely. No Notability as a team, cover in each article instead. MPJ -DK 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 86.3.174.49 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brittney Hopper[edit]

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

Not just this article fails to assert notability for the subject; through the sources, coverage of the subject is very thin with just trivial mentions of her. Donnie Park (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local broadcast news journalist with no sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All local. Nothing to establish WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:10, 28 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Crown[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in a somewhat cursory google search, I did not encounter any reliable sources that could be used to argue the page passes WP:GNG. Yvarta (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Search terms like Sophia Crown or Sophia Crown nigerian actress brings up nothing about the subject.
Delete: The subject has not received a single mention in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serbsican[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The claims for hits on the Billboard dance charts is not supported by the oficial web-site which doesn't have an entry at any position in the charts. Sources quoted are probably own blogs. Highly promotional. Earlier maintenance tags removed by author without improving the issues. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music duo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 26 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jordan Judge[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON, also fails WP:NACTOR too and is very thin on sources. Donnie Park (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as a college player, the appropriate notability guideline is WP:NCOLLATH, but this article fails that by 100 yards. ansh 666 19:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete You'd think if he was the captain of his team, there'd be a little more there after over half a year. Stats or something. If somebody just created this article this week, I might say give it some time to upgrade it. At this point, I assume there's not enough out there to get it up to snuff on notability. South Nashua (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @South Nashua: It's his brother Cameron Judge who was the team captain. Just a poor cut'n'paste job on the article creation... ansh666 19:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ansh666: Gotcha. I guess I'm up to a "normal" delete level now in my viewpoint on this one. Thanks for the heads up. South Nashua (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A college football player can also qualify under WP:GNG, but I am not finding the kind of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources that are needed to satisfy GNG standards. Cbl62 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 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. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Oritsetimeyin Omatseye[edit]

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

Reason Joe Agbro (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Excirial: before reverting an unexplained blanking of a page, please remember to see if this was an article creator and sole contributor attempting a speedy delete. As an administrator, could I ask you to move this along by respecting the article creator's wishes, delete the article and close this unnecessary Afd? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 20 March 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 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zaheer Abdul Rahman[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources to establish this person's notability. He claims to be the ~~sun~~son of a sultan of the Maldives, but according to List of sultans of the Maldives, that sultan died 161 years before this person was born. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:00, 20 March 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 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says son of a son of the sultan (and not son) - I wouldn't delete due to that only. The main thing lacking is any sources or any claim to notability. Seems he was a local school headmaster (according to the text) - this might even meet speedy deletion due to lack of claim to notability in the text itself. No sources. and a quick online source check doesn't find anything at all.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I misread that. As the son of royalty there was at least a credible claim of significance that might disqualify it from speedy deletion. As the son of the son of the Sultan, I probably should've speedy'd the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:13, 21 March 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 General insurance. Sandstein 08:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Property & casualty insurance[edit]

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

This article came up for WP:AFD in 2006. The conclusion was redirect to Property insurance and add a link to Casualty insurance. That was done; but the article was recreated in 2015 as a DAB page with two partial title matches as the only entries. 11 years is a long time, so I thought it best to open a new discussion rather than just re-implement the 2006 decision.
My proposal: ~~re-affirm the 2006 decision~~. Narky Blert (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote. The more I look at the 2006 discussion, the more it strikes me as very inadequate indeed. User:DS1953 then made a forceful point, as User:CityOfSilver has pointed out here, that "Property & casualty insurance" may be a term of art. ~~If so, the page under discussion should be turned into an article.~~ I remain firmly convinced that the page should not be a DAB page, it breaks any number of MOS:DAB rules. Narky Blert (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote, again. See my comment on Avi's vote, below. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: At the first discussion, User:DS1953 said, "This is a common term in the insurance industry and this article serves a legitimate function, pointing people who look for the term to the appropriate page. Redirecting is not possible; which of the two distinct articles would you redirect to?" That argument didn't carry weight in 2006 but it's still a bit compelling. Is there really no value at all in maintaining this as a DAB page? City Of Silver 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CityOfSilver: I saw that comment from 2006. I don't know what (if anything) WP:PTM said then; but in 2017, it says: "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title". A WP:SIA might be another solution, but I have no experience with those. Narky Blert (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: PTM makes an exception with the text "where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference." I think there is a risk since up until ten minutes ago, I would have guessed these terms meant the same thing, or that "property insurance" wasn't particularly distinct from using "casualty insurance" as an umbrella term. SIA seems like it would require a lot more expertise than I possess so I, personally, can't help there.

And the more I think about it, the more that old discussion gets on my nerves. The nom, User:Avraham, said "Already exist separate Property and Casualty pages," which is so irrelevant to a discussion about deleting a DAB that it's kind of a reason to keep it. Right after, Avraham added a vote that might be the worst attempt at sockpuppeting ever. (Am I right? Doesn't "Delete pn" mean "delete per nom?") The other delete, a strongly-worded vote from the long-vanished User:Perfecto, had no rationale at all. DS1953's is the only substantial argument I've seen either way. City Of Silver 20:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CityOfSilver:For the record, back then, the understood mechanics of AfD were that merely nominating an article for deletion did not automatically mean that the nominator believed the article should be deleted, so practice (at least among many of the AfDs I was taking part in 11 years ago) was to explicitly make clear one's opinion if one was the nominator. It was assumed that the closers were intelligent enough to only count one of the two, should both exist

. It is very likely mores have changed over the past decade. -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even though it's been 11 years and the decision made in the 2006 AfD did not cause the world to come to an end, I still maintain that this is an established term of art in the insurance industry and if we are not going to have a complete article on the term, then at least someone who searches the term could be given a clear choice of where to go instead of a redirect to the slightly more limited term Property insurance. See:

-- DS1953 ^talk 18:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Insurance#Types as a {{R with possibilities}}. Property and casualty has redirected to Insurance since 2010. Station1 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I could go along with that idea, too. My only strong opinion is, that the page under discussion is not a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Station1: gud spot on Property and casualty as a possible {{R with possibilities}}, it looks exactly on point for this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to General insurance Speaking as a P&C actuary, in my experience, the term is used as a synonym for General insurance, or what Europeans would call Non-Life Insurance (ala ASTIN: Actuarial STudies In Non-Life). As a matter of fact, the lede of General Insurance reads: General insurance or non-life insurance policies, including automobile and homeowners policies, provide payments depending on the loss from a particular financial event. General insurance is typically defined as any insurance that is not determined to be life insurance. It is called property and casualty insurance in the U.S. and Canada and non-life insurance in Continental Europe. Which is a bit more fleshed out than it was in January 2006. -- Avi (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. That quote from General insurance looks precisely on point. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me too. Station1 (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to General insurance per Avraham - the quote from the lead is convincing. The term ~~could be~~ is bolded in the lead too, per MOS:BOLD: "To follow the "principle of least astonishment" after following a redirect, for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section ". And I've created redirect from Property and casualty insurance (ie "and" rather than "&") too. PamD 10:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) 10:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have just WP:BOLDLY retargetted Property and casualty (the redirect which Station1 found) to General insurance for the same reason. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change to a disambiguation page instead. --Oskinet (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Oskinet: It's already a DAB page, which is both the problem and the reason why I nominated it - it goes against WP:PTM. Narky Blert (talk) 20:54, 27 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Hercules[edit]

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

Article on a footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league (they have never played higher than level 7), failing WP:NFOOTY. Prod removed by article creator. Number 5 7 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Mark West (English footballer) for the same reason; West has played as high as level 5, but never made an appearance for Wycombe after they became members of the Football League.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both have not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning both articles fail WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:32, 27 March 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 withdrawn by nom. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of British computers[edit]

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

Arbitrary cross-categorization (why British computers? is there something special about them?), failing WP:NOTFAQ point 9. Not sure it has any particular notability; might be better off as a category. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have Category:British computers and so, per WP:CLN, a list is valid too. The topic is quite notable as Britain has been a significant pioneer in computing and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Early British computers. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be arbitrary cross-categorization when this is not a category? At any rate, keep per Category:British computers and WP:CLN, as noted above. The wording of the nomination statement gives one the impression that the editor was not aware that a category existed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article seems to be worthy of WP:LISTN. Presently it is presented as a stand alone list which could be expanded to something more encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially that all items of the list have articles on notable-enough computers. PaleoNeonate (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good historical reasons to have such lists. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bakr Sadiq Abdellaoui[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he plays for a team in the Tercera División, whereas Spain's fully professional leagues only include La Liga and Segunda División. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. At 19 years of age it seems that the article is WP:TOOSOON and it can always be re-created in the future when the subject passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:18, 25 March 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 Withdrawn. per nominator's comment. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Smoked Husband[edit]

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

Besides the one reference in the article, trying to find anything on this brings up a bunch of stuff related to smoking. Amongst the mess is this though it looks like a sales site to me. Mind you it does have a BFI entry , though I'm not 100% sure if it's an WP:RS . MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 18:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several references via Google Books in a few moments. Not bad for a film that's 109 years old. Your rational for deletion is based around your own inability to use Google/find sources, which is a pretty weak argument. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Checked up to Page 3 on Google, but whatever, per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Smoked_Husband&type=revision&diff=771295975&oldid=771294152 that should hit policy requirements. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 19:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eli et Papillon[edit]

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

Delete; relist following a no-consensus because no-participation close in the first discussion. This is still an article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, which basically just asserts that they exist, the end, and sources it to one piece of reliable source coverage and one interview on a blog. But the interview doesn't assist notability, because it represents the band talking about themselves and blogs aren't reliable sources, and the one piece of real reliable source coverage isn't enough by itself to give them "notability because media coverage exists" in the absence of actually having accomplished any specific thing that would pass an NMUSIC criterion. This is simply WP:TOOSOON at best. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep A cursory search finds several other mentions in published works, eg [1][2][3][4]. I disagree on the importance of the Huffington Post article, it is published by organization which has full editorial control, and therefore applicable, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Exceptions. The fact that it is an interview is irrelevant, it is not a self-promotional piece written by the band, but rather a third party writing about their interview of the band. I am not entirely sure of the reliability of all the mentioned sources, as my french is a little shaky, but I believe they qualify the band as notable. However, the article as written is very weak, and in need of much improvement. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All four of those links are blurbs, not substantive coverage, and three of the four are in blogs rather than real media (Voir is the only one that counts for anything), so no, they're really not adding GNG points at all — and even if they were valid sources, none of them is verifying anything that would pass an WP:NMUSIC criterion. And the thing about Q&A interviews is not some random personal thing I made up just to be difficult — it's a longstanding consensus at AFD that interviews of that type can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after passage of GNG has already been shown by stronger sources, but they cannot be the GNG in and of themselves if they're the best sources that can actually be found. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I read the numbered points of WP:NMUSIC without reading the clarifing sub-bullets too closely. You are correct that none of this supports NMUSIC. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 13:43, 22 March 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 List of magical beings in Charmed. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelighter[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. All references to this appear to be limited to plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of magical beings in Charmed, the obvious target. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of magical beings in Charmed. A non-notable fictional concept that has no real sources outside of plot summaries of the series they originated from. As it is already present on the target article, a redirect is all that is needed. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 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.

Sources have been added to the article but there is no consensus whether they are sufficient to make the subject pass WP:NORG and WP:GNG, although the slight majority seems to think so. As the closing admin, it does not fall to me to decide whether the sources are indeed sufficient and despite the addition there was no real discussion about the specific sources and why they should or should not be considered sufficient to prove notability.

On a side note:

While there is no guideline pertaining to teams, there is - as Nthep points out - a guideline for individual players and there is some consensus to apply this guideline to teams as well in specific cases. There is some sentiment that the subject should be considered notable regardless of GNG or NORG for similar reasons as stated in WP:RLN or WP:NRU. Since this is a decision that potentially affects hundreds of similar articles, it probably is - as some users have commented - in the project's best interest to establish some basic consensus how to handle all those articles, lest we want to have the same discussions over and over again here.

Regards So Why 13:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myton Warriors[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Club plays at the top level of the amateur rugby league system, the BARLA National Conference League Premier Division. In short, the club is notable and meets all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article however does need some work to improve it's over all standard. Skemcraig (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment – It's worrying that a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union has randomly singled out a Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league article to target for a deletion campaign. I'd hate to think that a personal vendetta could be behind this AfD. I hope that isn't the case Domdeparis. Skemcraig (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very odd thing to say especially without proof but there is no personal vendetta so you can rest assured (please read WP:AGF before making unfounded insinuations). All pages have to meet WP:GNG this one doesn't and all sports clubs have to meet WP:NORG and at the moment this page doesn't. It's not complicated you cannot assume notability for an organisation it has to be backed up by sources. Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I call it as I see it and the question needed to be asked. No WP:AGF issues here. As for WP:GNG / WP:NORG, the article passes easily, hence why I wonder about your personal agenda here. Though you're obviously entitled to your opinion regarding amateur clubs, If you truly don't have an agenda as you say, and I'll take you at your word, I now await your nomination of amateur rugby union club articles for deletion. Just as a final FYI to show I have no bias here, if and when a rugby union club is AfD'd, I'll be !voting keep on that one too. Skemcraig (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply that is exactly what AGF means...not calling it as you see it because maybe you do not see it clearly please read WP:AOBF. When i nominated the article there were no references whatsoever and just the club page as an external link. I came across this page because I was checking edits made by a vandal on other pages. I noticed that it had no sources or external links so I prodded it as such. It was deprodded with only an external link added and no sources. So I then nominated it here. the sources that you have since added may help it to meet WP:NORG but I have my doubts which is why I have left it open to discussion. If you are suggesting that I have something against Rugby League compared to Rugby union because I have never made a deletion proposal of a rugby union club, you are insinuating that I am biased and that I am acting in bad faith. Please don't do that as it is totally based on your own biased opinion of me and is a personal attack. Domdeparis (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I *have* assumed good faith so far, I'll continue to do so, despite the baseless accusations of AGF/Civility breaches. It is perfectly acceptable and frankly normal to ask reasonable questions when things simply don't add up. This is all I have done here and your overreaction is quite suggestive that my gut feeling may have been correct. Though in the spirit of AGF, I will continue to ask simple questions rather than make out right accusations like you're suggesting I am. My simple question is, if you think this Rugby league club fails the policies, why don't you believe these comparable Rugby union clubs fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG too? – Scunthorpe Rugby Club, Sheffield Tigers RUFC, South Leicester RFC, I could go on. All these clubs play at the same level of the RFU system as Myton Warriors do of the RFL system. All are amateur and all have a similar level of cited sources. Now stop getting defensive, If you think you're right, please argue your case with evidence rather than simply shouting "AGF" and "personal attack", as this helps no one. Cheers Skemcraig (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They play in the highest level of amateur rugby league in the UK. As per the above about being notable and meeting existing guidelines.Fleets (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could share a link to those guidelines. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 18:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many, many sources found by an internet search. According to WP:BEFORE "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." In other words, it's not if the article is adequately referenced, but rather if the references exist so the article could be adequately referenced. Domdeparis, if you agree that adequate sourcing exists, whether or not it is or was in the article, than you might consider withdrawing the nomination. Just a suggestion, that's entirely up to you. Jacona (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I did make a search and the coverage that I could find was routine and did not prove notability. "Normal editing" does not concern sources; what you should have reproduced is a bit further down on the page and was this "If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate." Thanks for the suggestion though. Domdeparis (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jacona, this article just needed a clean up, some sources adding (I've made a start on that one) and tagging as required. An AfD is OTT. I also back Jacona's suggestion that Domdeparis should consider withdrawing the AfD. Skemcraig (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I have considered it I looked at the sources and I agree with myself...that the sources added after the nomination do not sufficiently prouve notability. the pitchero page is a self-published history of the club, the national conference league page is just a simple directory entry and the only page that comes close is the local newspaper article. So please remember chaps that just because it is a tiers 4 team doesn't make it notable. there is no inherent notability. And i would suggest you take the time to read WP:NORG more closely, the Hull Daily mail article is 1 independent source (local at that) and NORG says that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." So make an effort and find the sources necessary...I couldn't find them myself so no withdrawal from my part. Domdeparis (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're going around in a circle now Domdeparis, so I'll just refer you back to an earlier comment of mine RE: Union clubs having same "issue" as it works perfectly as a reply to this too. Just an FYI though, I don't think any of the Union or League club articles have any deletion criteria. Skemcraig (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so instead of addressing my remarks you're repeating that other stuff exists so this page should too...try reading this it should help you avoid turning circles WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have very clearly argued my case I don't know how else to put it...I can write it in French if you wish but over and above that I can't do any more but I'll try one more time...IMHO THIS page doesn't meet WP:NORG. Domdeparis (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for you to cite OTHERSTUFF. That ~~policy~~ essay doesn't excuse you singling out amateur League club articles for random AfD's while conveniently ignoring Union clubs with potentially the exact same issues you accuse the League club of having. You're not doing much to dampen my worries that you're operating with some kind of COI here. Either way, this argument is getting the deletion discussion no where. Since we're making ourselves nice and clear, let me make my position nice and clear for you. Myton Warriors does not fail WP:GNG or WP:NORG and you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Skemcraig (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC) – corrected 00:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC) by Skemcraig (talk)[reply]

Skemcraig, it's not really possible to disprove, what we need is evidence that it does pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. As has been said, there are lots of sources...can you point out the ones that you feel show WP:Significant coverage by reliable sources? Jacona (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree Jacona. The onus is on the nominator to show why the article should be deleted, not solely on myself to prove why it shouldn't. I simply come here and give my opinion and my !vote like anyone else. In any case, I've already added a few sources to the article and when I have time I'll research some more. This is not a life priority of mine though you'll understand... Also, since it's possible the nominator may have a preference for nominating club articles of one sport for deletion, whilst willingly ignoring the identical club articles of thier favorite sport, I think the onus should apply even more on them to show that their case here is based on provable facts rather than a personal COI. I will also point out that I've decided that I won't be replying to Domdeparis again regarding this issue, as from this point on it'd likely only escalate into further pointless arguing which not only wastes mine and thier valuable time, but also serves no purpose anymore to this AfD or Wikipedia as a whole. However, I remain open minded and willing to give Domdeparis the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions here, despite all of the above. Skemcraig (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. No specific policies countering those notability guidelines have been presented by proponents to keep the article. Sources provided and found are local interest stories or schedules/results pages. Amateur sports are not inherently notable. Scr★pIron^IV 17:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It passes GNG / NORG, your !vote is flawed. Skemcraig (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skemcraig, perhaps you could show us how the article passes GNG / NORG? Please take a look at WP:DISCUSSAFD for some direction on how to proceed, if you would like to keep the article. Jacona (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree Jacona. The onus is on the nominator to show why the article should be deleted, not solely on myself to prove why it shouldn't. I simply come here and give my opinion and my !vote like anyone else. In any case, I've already added a few sources to the article and when I have time I'll research some more. This is not a life priority of mine though you'll understand... Also, since it's possible the nominator may have a preference for nominating club articles of one sport for deletion, whilst willingly ignoring the identical club articles of thier favorite sport, I think the onus should apply even more on them to show that their case here is based on provable facts rather than a personal COI. - To add to this, I look forward to ScrapIron / Domdeparis nominating all the amateur rugby union club articles for deletion in the near future... (I won't hold my breath!) Skemcraig (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skemcraig: You may disagree with Jacona, I don't, he and I may not agree on the notability of this article but he understands the idea behind these discussions and how to participate. Please stop making presumptions about me and the reasons behind the nomination, this is once again WP:AOBF. This is the last time that I will ask you to refrain from doing it, the next time I will ask an administrator to intervene because it's starting to become very unpleasant. Rather than attacking the nominator try reading his arguments and reply to them. Once again I am not on a crusade against rugby league clubs, I personally couldn't care less what the subject is so long as the article is up to Wikipedia standards which this one was not when I nominated it here. For your information my favourite sport is not rugby union but show jumping. All clubs must meet WP:NORG and this article failed hence my nomination. My argument is valid the more you try and turn it into a personal vendetta on my part the more your !vote loses weight. Once again if I come across a page that I don't believe meets the necessary criteria I will nominate but there is no way I will go looking for rugby union clubs that don't meet the criteria just to please Skemcraig and prove my good faith. You have now accused me more than 9 times of acting in bad faith and the repetition of WP:AOBF without proof is a personal attack. Last warning to stop the Personal attack stick to the subject in hand. Domdeparis (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have enough sources to pass GNG. In terms of a footballing pedigree, the clubs place in the Premier Division and its history in the Challenge Cup make a case for this club to be notable. But, as an editor of both codes of rugby, it is clear that their is not enough guidance in place for applying NORG to sports clubs. Mattlore (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there's not a specific policy for sports clubs notability to be honest. It'd stop anything like this happening again for sure. I have no idea how you go about getting policies made, but something like WP:SPORTSCLUB with a list of criteria would be ideal. Playing in a sports top level amateur competition would be an easy include for me. As well as things like "is fully or semi-professional" etc of course. Skemcraig (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recently proposed an AFD for a soccer club who play at tier 9 or 10 of the English structure and about whom I could find nothing beyond routine coverage but it ended up as a snow keep because the club alleged met WP:NFOOTY as they had played once in the first round of the FA Vase and as far as the soccer buffs were concerned that is notability enough. If Myton have played in the Challenge Cup, which at least is a top level national competition, then by the same standard they are a notable club. Nthep (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could anyone proposing the mass deletion of amateur sports teams please point out the specific points within NORG that this particular sports club fails. Please qualify the assumption that it fails NORG as I see little specificity within that argument put forward, and often replied with "it's up to you to prove me wrong" kind of statement which is far from helpful to either side.Fleets (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CJWE-FM[edit]

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

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

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

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

(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)

The final (thankfully) set of low power tourist information stations of no reliably sourceable notability; the only remaining stragglers after this are a couple of stations which clear the bar for different reasons (i.e. they weren't always just TIS stations, but offered more conventionally NMEDIA-passing program formats at other times in their histories.) However, WP:NMEDIA explicitly deprecates TIS stations as not inherently notable, except in the rare instance that they actually pass WP:GNG. We formerly had a practice of exempting Canadian TIS stations from getting deleted on that basis, because they had to possess CRTC licenses just like any other radio station and were thus sourceable to at least some of the same types of sources that we permit in other radio station articles -- but as of 2013, the CRTC revised its policies and TIS stations are now exempt from having to have licenses at all anymore. As a result, it is no longer verifiable whether any of these stations is still operational or not: reliable media sources don't cover them and the CRTC doesn't have to issue license renewals, so we have no way to determine whether any of these is still operating, if it went defunct then when or why, or anything else about it. And if we can't verify it anymore, then we can't keep it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's also one special case here: following deletion, CKEY-FM will need to be recreated as a redirect to CFLZ-FM, as it was that station's call sign for fully 20 years before being dropped and then picked up by the unrelated and non-notable TIS station described by this version of the article. However, as there's no value in maintaining the TIS station's edit history, the page should be deleted and then recreated as a redirect, rather than simply being redirected immediately, which is why I'm still including it in this batch rather than handling it separately. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Update: On the basis of evidence located by the first commenter below, I'm withdrawing CKEY-FM from this discussion as it requires an immediate repair of an improper cut-and-paste move — and since the histmerge will naturally suppress the CKEY-Barrie edits anyway, there's really very little point in restoring them again afterward just to put them back through a process that'll merely get them redeleted again within days. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; there's no presumption of notability for tourist information stations, licensed or not, and it seems unlikely that any of these stations will ever attain the coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline (much less be independently notable of the entities these stations exist to serve or promote), much less to verify whether they are still operating. (Even then, would there be enough to get any of these articles out of the permastub category all of these TIS station articles more-or-less fall under?). I must, however, add to the special circumstances regarding CKEY-FM: its revisions prior to January 19, 2012 correspond to the station now known as CFLZ-FM, and Webfan29 (talk · contribs) appears to have performed a cut-and-paste move of the CKEY-FM article as it existed before then to CFLZ-FM on that day (the same user then replaced the resulting redirect in 2013 with the present article for the unrelated TIS station). As a result, while I agree that the edit history for the TIS station (i.e., all edits to CKEY-FM since March 1, 2013) should go, the revisions up to and including this one must be retained and in fact merged into the CFLZ-FM edit history. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ay-yi-yi, I didn't notice all of that. On that basis, I'm going to withdraw CKEY from this discussion and do an immediate cut-and-paste repair. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 21 March 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 List of magical beings in Charmed. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darklighter[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. All references to this appear to be limited to plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of magical beings in Charmed, where they are already included. They do not have independent notability, evidenced by the fact that the only sources present in the article are the episodes of the series themselves, and upon searching for more sources, the only places I can find mention of the beings are either on the Charmed Wiki, or as brief mentions in plot summaries. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, and a redirect does make sense. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above - it's the obvious target. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Khurana Goyal[edit]

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

Fandom page. Other than her winning a minor pageant, no in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Sources only report her winning the "Mrs India Queen of Substance" and the "Mrs Earth" (not to be confused with Miss Earth) awards (which are hardly notable themselves) in 2015. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep. Needs to be rewritten - too positive in tone. She won India queen of substance in February [5], then Mrs Earth in October [6], and has on-going coveraged in 2016 - [7], [8], [9]. Seems she started a smallish fashion company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 07:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a small cleanup + added a couple of sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Economic Times, none of the sources cited (Jokatimes, iDiva.com, Freepressjournal.in, DesiBlitz, Hans India) in the article are notable (or even heard of) in India. Thus, the ongoing coverage on her seems to be restricted to little-known online-only magazines. — Stringy Acid (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another [10] from Dec 2016. My knowledge of Indian media is not great (all the more so regarding modelling/fashion - the business/news stuff I do know a bit. I do think she is receiving some modest on-going coverage, and should squeak by. The original entry was atrocious (probably copy-pasted from IMI's alumni webpage or newspaper) - the current entry is more balanced.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even this website, wearethecity.in, doesn't look like a reliable source (from their about page, it seems like they were founded in 2008 -- which is hardly enough time to acquire some sort of reputation). The only reliable source in the article is the Economic Times one, but even then, all these sources talk mainly about her winning two (not-so-famous) awards, which as per WP:BLP1E isn't good enough to pass WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't contest wearethecity.in's notability (you may be quite right), however your reasoning is flawed - plenty of notable sources - e.g. The_Intercept, The Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight are new. Some of her coverage is of other activties - e.g. a fashion show in London in which she launched a line. And of course, just the on-going coverage shows someone is interested in this. This is definitely not WP:BLP1E - the local Mrs title is distinct from the global Mrs title. The coverage in the more notable source (Economic Times India) is actually from before Mrs Earth - so they actually thought it was noteworthy to cover her as a contestant and not as a global winner. I think she squeaks above the deletion threshold - but this a weak position of mine.Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like she's getting some local coverage as well [11] (and from her FB looks like she's appearing in a few events per week - still - 1.5 years after the title).Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my reason for the non-notability of wearethecity.in, was somewhat flawed. However, it's not fair to compare it with websites like FiveThirtyEight and The Intercept, which have received wide coverage by other reputed sources. I'm no expert on beauty pageants, but the global title ("Mrs Earth", not to be confused with Miss Earth) she received doesn't seem to be very notable either -- I count < 30 hits for "Mrs. & Ms. Earth Pageant" on Google. I'll be happy to change my vote to neutral/keep if there are sources that show that the awards she received are notable. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not meet notability guidelines as per WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not only do we lack any substantial references on the subject, but the pageant is throughouly unnotable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 27 March 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 and redirect to Paella#In popular culture. Thereby satisfying, I hope, both the "delete" opinions in the discussion's first half, and the "redirect" opinions in the second. Sandstein 08:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow pan of food[edit]

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

This is a nonsensical creation, none of these dishes are known as "shallow pan of food", nor is it a plausible search term for any such cookware. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, the phrase "shallow pan of food" only seems to refer, by that name, to an emoji. I can find no evidence that this is a phrase or concept commonly used in culinary discussion. While there are certainly some recipes that call for cooking food in a "shallow pan", trying to link these all into a made-up neologism is pure WP:SYNTH. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment and nominator's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep until Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#🥘 is resolved as explicitly explained at Talk:Shallow pan of food when I deprodded this (I'm wondering if Tavix has even bothered reading this). After that concludes I think it should be kept because the name of the emoji means that this is a useful search term for the set of items that are shallow pans of food and shallow food pans. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Stuffed flatbread, which is also a descriptive set of things which are stuffed flatbreads even if they are not known by that term, created by consensus following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#🥙. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, I read it but disagreed with the logic. The RfD is unrelated to this index. If it's not a valid index now, it won't magically become one once the RfD is closed (or vice versa). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unrelated except for it being created because of it, and there being at least one good faith recommendation to retarget it here. If you disagree with that then you should be commenting to that effect at the RfD. If the RfD had been closed with consensus against targetting this or using it as a hatnote target then the deletion nomination would be fine, but bypassing the ongoing discussion and not mentioning it here or even acknowledging that it was used as the basis for deprodding the article, makes me uncertain how much good faith is being extended? Is there a reason you have chosen to completely ignore the existing discussion? Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the creation of this index was misguided and should be deleted for the reasons I stated above. As this is the proper forum for the deletion of set indices, I fail to see the problem here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not disputing that this is the correct venue to nominate set indicies for deletion. I'm arguing that pages being discussed as possible targets for a redirect, at an RfD discussion or elsewhere, should not be nominated for deletion until that discussion concludes. Indeed, unless the page is actively harmful (i.e. subject to speedy deletion as an attack page or copyvio) then I struggle to see how such a nomination can truly be in good faith. I note that you have still not expressed your opinion about this target in the RfD (where you should have done first). Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I am in no way obligated to participate further in the aforementioned RfD. I have stated my opinion and have nothing further to add. If there's a page that I think meets the criteria for deletion, the sooner the problematic page is taken care of, the better. Your accusation of bad faith is laughable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. This isn't RfD-related, it's an article and as such, notability matters. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See above for how this is inextricably linked to the ongoing RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My !Vote stands. See WP:NEOLOGISM Exemplo347 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neither a notable neologism nor a valid disambiguation page. As for the Rfd issue, well, if someone wants to keep as a redirect to Paella#In_popular_culture, fine. I wouldn't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. older ≠ wiser 10:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete should have been speedied as a nonsense page. i can't believe people are creating emoji redirects. Jytdog (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I originally voted to delete both of those Emoji Redirects. When I created the Article in question here, I did so as a compromise after my original support for deleting those Emoji-based Redirects was overruled by subsequent consensus. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until RFD is closed - "shallow pan of food" is not a made up phrase or description, it's the Unicode definition of the character in question. The nominator's argument also would apply to stuffed flatbread - I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, but that was created as a result of consensus at RfD. Let's see what the RFD says. If the consensus is not to SIA-ify, this page shouldn't be brought back into mainspace, that's for sure. If the consensus is to SIA-ify, perhaps this page should be moved to 🥘. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that my argument would apply to stuffed flatbread. It's a pretty common phrase that applies to multiple styles of flatbread, and the SIA emphasizes that. "Shallow pan of food", on the other hand, is not even a plausible search term. I would oppose draftifying this as it's obvious from the current discussion at the RfD and the current discussion here that this page is not going to be accepted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't wait for the RfD to conclude before taking action here. Nonsense articles based on a neologism shouldn't be retained based on a discussion about redirects. The standards are totally different. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. The former Article is now a Redirect, based on a proposal here: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_6#.F0.9F.A5.98. Not only did I create this once-Article-now-Redirect, but also, I don't consider this action unilateral when 2 others have proposed the same Redirect for the Unicode character that the phrase officially describes. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this, as it counts as "blanking" - which should not be done while an Article for Deletion discussion is taking place. Please have patience. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very existence of this debate before the original RFD closed is an act of severe impatience in itself. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the related RfD for the emoji has been closed as "refine to Paella#In popular culture". – Uanfala (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and this is coming from the Creator of said Article. Now that a refined target is available, I'm going to recreate it as a Redirect after the deletion anyway. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Mysterious El Willstro: it's disruptive to recreate something against consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a Redirect when the relevant consensus concerns an Article specifically. If you really want to press me at WP:Redirects for discussion later, I will make the argument that an official Unicode description is thereby bound to the character, and that both make sense as Redirects to the same Target. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this to be a redirect, why have you stated "Delete"? Exemplo347 (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because there isn't much Article History to bother preserving. As far as I'm concerned, it makes no difference whether the Redirect is an Edit or a new Page Creation. Nevertheless, I'll change it keep form. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the result here is "redirect", recreating it as a redirect would still be disruptive as there'd be consensus against having it as a redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the unicode character (and thence to the target agreed by the RfD discussion). Like it or not (clearly some don't) "shallow pan of food" is the name of a unicode character and a legitimate search term. It occurs to me - and this is a discussion for another time, somewhere else - that WP isn't very good or consistent at ḥandling searches of/for emojis. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paella#In popular culture. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paella#In popular culture per above, where the term is explained. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 European Tour 1 - East European Qualifier[edit]

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

also nominating 2017 European Tour 1 - Nordic & Baltic Qualifier, 2017 European Tour 1 - UK Qualifier, 2017 European Tour 2 - East European Qualifier, 2017 European Tour 2 - Nordic & Baltic Qualifier, 2017 European Tour 3 - East European Qualifier, 2017 European Tour 3 - Nordic & Baltic Qualifier, 2017 European Tour 4 - Nordic & Baltic Qualifier, 2017 European Tour 5 - Nordic & Baltic Qualifier, 2017 European Tour 6 - Nordic & Baltic Qualifier Reasoning: Those newly created articles describe really minor darts events. Those are held just for the players, no tv, no spectators, no prize-money. Thus they don't get mentioned or noted in any secondary sources but the PDC website or darts databases. Also the bracket format, not used by any of the aforementioned site, makes the articles huge. Because of the players being mostly amateur the articles don't have much usabilty because they are just red wikilinks. There are more minor events listed in Category:2017_PDC_Pro_Tour, but the above should be enough for a first discussion. Koppapa (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edit a lot on darts articles and didn't even realise these articles existed. In my opinion they are not needed whatsoever. The results of these minor events are already included in the main event as seen here. Spc 21 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor events which receive no coverage aside from WP:ROUTINE coverage from official sources. Wikipedia is not a results directory. OZ OO 09:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. OZ OO 12:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. OZ OO 12:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verz Design[edit]

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

Quite not notable company Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing shows that it meets WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive competitive advantage[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:COATRACK for promoting the company SoundHealth. DePRODed by author. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This barely even qualifies as an article. I believe it's a machine-translation of something else, particularly with gibberish sentences like "The agency uses the condition "Unfair Competitive Advantage" to accesses technological opportunities, specifically does the innovation being considered create an unfair competitive advantage for an acquirer." Exemplo347 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is a WP:FORK of Dominance (economics), and doesn't look to me in any way a likely search term. The opening paragraphs consist of generalities and platitudes. The title looks to me like a WP:NEOLOGISM dreamt up by sound-health.org, the author of the sole citation, whose home page says that they are "a technology transfer agency providing an efficient pathway to commercialization for remarkable medical innovation"; but about whom a Google search turned up nothing WP:RS at all. Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 27 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Petkov[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:RESUME Kleuske (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete this ridiculously long BLP. No notability found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find a single publication that this professor has listed on his website on the web. This could perhaps be because they were published in Ukrainian, and translations are not easy to find. In any case, there's no evidence of notability, and the username of the creator of the article suggests a strong WP:COI. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:29, 21 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Valazakov[edit]

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

Apparently a hoax. No Google, GScholar or GBooks results apart from Wikipedia mirrors. None of the cited sources I was able to access actually mention anyone by this name. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Circumstantial evidence for hoax: Jason Valazak was/is a social studies teacher at Nortwest High School in Germantown, MD. [12] and the author of this article also edited (diff) the Northwest High School (Montgomery County, Maryland) article in 2009. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does seem to be a hoax. Two of the refs that I could find online do not check out: Alfred Rambaud, Graeme Mercer Adam, “The history of Russia from the earliest times to 1877”, A.L. Burt, 1904 pg. 194 and: Paul K. Davis, “100 Decisive Battles From Ancient Times to the Present: The World’s Major Battles and how They Shaped History” Oxford University Press:1999, pg. 165. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. They did a good job with it but this clearly shouldn't stay. Mortee (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a surprising conclusion for an article that appears to have a number of references to works by respectable academic historians, but close inspection suggests that the references refer to historical events into which this story is woven; none of the citations appears directly to cover the fact (as opposed to the context), though I have not checked most of them out, but the two that come up on GBooks so not mention him, not GScholar (unless there are transliteration problems). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of agricultural products[edit]

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

This seems to be a rather arbitrary and unmaintainable list article. Why these groups? How were they classified? Why not just use any of the other groupings found on the Lists of foods? All of the subset of fibers, fuels, etc are already found on those pages. I honestly think this was a solution looking for a problem. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as my discussion at Talk:List of agricultural products:

"As stated at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value"
Frankly, I think you should abandon this list and ask for it to be deleted, as, unless I have misunderstood your intentions, it appears "too broad in scope" and will become unmanageably large as people keep adding subdivisions, down to individual products."

The article creator User:Fmadd is the only significant contributor, and has since been indeffed, so effectively the article has been abandoned. - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an indiscriminate list, no selection criteria are stated. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list could be enlarged to include every land-based cultivated or harvested biological product on the planet. Narky Blert (talk) 22:09, 27 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avvy Go[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little in the way of notability. Article seems to promote legal clinic. scope_creep (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO after searching for RSes and most of them are passing mentions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see her quoted in the press many, many times. I also counted six good Google Books references on the first page of results. She is a clear keep.198.58.162.200 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was adding references and came across this Law Society of Upper Canada congratulations page for her Order of Ontario Award. That's a significant award per WP:ANYBIO, and let's not forget that she is also being recognized on that page as a significant lawyer by the Law Society of Upper Canada (i.e. Ontario), established 230 years ago in 1797. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Order of Ontario seals it for me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto, along with along her other distinctions.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sheer volume of incidental mentions by national level publications get her over the WP:GNG bar. --LauraHale (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been updated quite drastically in the last couple of days, and particularly last night. The order of ontario seems to be one of the highest civilian orders, which makes her notable. Speedy Close scope_creep (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as the nominator, are you saying you withdraw the nomination? That might be appropriate.198.58.162.200 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Good grief, the second highest honour in the country has been bestowed upon this woman and her notability is questioned. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not even attempted. SusunW (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Missed the signature earlier. scope_creep (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Again, WP:BEFORE was clearly not attempted. Not only are there numerous sources but the Order of Ontario is a significant honour, the highest in Ontario. This sort of deletion nomination is just plain lazy. freshacconci (✉) 16:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is clearly notable and passes GNG even if we don't consider her Order of Ontario, which we do. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, though see little benefit of the infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG easily. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EconLog[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and sourcing for pushing 5 years now without being fixed. This article is largely self-sourced and does not appear to establish WP:NWEB. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly self sourced to an excess: citations 1 through 30! But it gets worse after that. The non-self-sourced citations start in the "Reception" section, where WSJ and Onalytica Indexes each list it in directories as one of N blogs, then several sources are used to show "blog entries have been referenced by many blogs and newspapers" or similar weak attempts at riding coattails of other notables. The first fails to help here: "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined" per WP:Notability. The second fails flat per WP:NOTINHERITED. - Bri (talk) 19:01, 20 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misbug[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The content of the article, in my opinion, would be better suited to Wikitionary than Wikipedia. AtlasDuane (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even dictionary, since as the article even admits, it was never in general use. I have been a software engineer for 40 years and never heard it until now. W Nowicki (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: completely irrelevant article Porphyro (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: let's not be a mirror for the Jargon File. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:56, 26 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meenal Darak[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support general notability guideline. Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:BIO also no evidence to support her acting career. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no google news hits (on both names). Won an ethnic pageant in a city (miss India Seattle). Far from notable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines as per WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahman Fouruzandeh[edit]

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

Article with no references. Been deproded twice but removed. No evidence of notability. No availability of WP:SOLDIER and so fails WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom except for the fact that the article claims he died so it is not technically a BLP article. Domdeparis (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When your right your right. Never saw that. Not a BLP article. 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dti-ag[edit]

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

Contested prod. I believe this fails WP:NCOMP. The company has won one award (silver medal in the "Best of Swiss Web 2016") which to me is very minor, all else is WP:MILL. Pgallert (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than WP:ROUTINE (and very little of that), searches turned up virtually nothing on this company. No in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 20 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse (rapper)[edit]

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

non-notable musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Winning a non-notable music competition isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and no WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. An online search of him doesn't show him being discussed in significant detail. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airpaz[edit]

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

fails WP:NCOMPANY DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost purely WP:G4 content. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway 124 (India)[edit]

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

No Highway naveenpf (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't appear to be a national highway of India. National highways were renumbered c. 2011. Pages 24-45 of this PDF lists the new/old numbers, and I couldn't find NH 124 in either lists. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Leong Kuan-Pui[edit]

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

Article on an unelected political candidate in Hong Kong municipal elections fails POLOUTCOMES DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leaving aside my amusement at "Lutheranism, a major political organization", what we have here is an article which just states that the subject exists, and contains no substance to demonstrate why an encyclopedia should concern itself with the fact that he exists. And for sourcing, what we've got is two dead links and one primary source, which is not what it takes to get someone over WP:GNG in lieu of his failure to pass any subject-specific inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is messed up making incoherent statements. He may be a failed candidate in Hong Kong municipal elections, but the current article does not make that clear. At present I think it almost could be speedied under A7 because it makes no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 27 March 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) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amirali shokri Actor[edit]

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

fails NACTOR and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:57, 20 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Gruet[edit]

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

No copy of value; no citations. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard | 09:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. The source given in the external links section contains a reasonable depth of coverage; enough for a short article at least. Google Books turns up a number of other mentions in sources about Calvin. – Joe (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that there are articles on Gruet at fr:Jacques Gruet, de:Jacques Gruet, and es:Jacques Gruet (all of which are longer than this stub was when it was nominated). – Joe (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~; this seems to be a WP:BIO1E case, the man is known only for being a victim of Calvin's theocratic regime. Unless there is anything more of substance to say about this man than what is already at John Calvin#Discipline and opposition (1546–1553), but I doubt it. Sandstein 20:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep per Smmurphy's improvements noted below. Thanks! Sandstein 08:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned up one citation, added another, both of which are in depth discussions of the Gruet affair which do provide a few details more generally on his life. I've expanded the article a bit as well. Plenty of passing and one or two paragraph discussions of the affair can be found on google books. I'll try to find a full version of this article, which might give a bit more. ~~If pressed, the article could be retitled something like, The arrest, trial, death, and burning of books of Jacques Gruet, but that seems silly.~~ Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added quite a bit of material to the page and I think I'm finished for now. Given the importance of his political activities discussed in Berriot 1979 (to which I linked in my previous comment), I have struck my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that a renaming could make sense, as I don't think 1E applies at all anymore. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Calvin is criticised for the regime that he had at Geneva and I take it this man was a victim of that. If so, he is certainly notable, though we probably know little of him but the circumstances of his death. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TouchDevelop[edit]

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

This article was tagged as spam but rewritten some time ago, almost certainly by someone associated with the project. The sources are not independent - all are either Microsoft or the project itself. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, this doesn't look notable. Blythwood (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Liashchuk[edit]

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

May not meet notability guidelines. Only source provided doesn't match with other statements in the article. RoCo^(talk) 17:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had no clue there were such bizarre world records as fastest time to crush 3 water mellons with your thighs. A single line mention in Guiness World Records is not a sign of notability. The book prides itself on gathering the utterly trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catharina Meessen[edit]

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

Wikipedia does not find it interesting either. There is nothing inherently notable about living a long time. John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Longevity can be a notable factor, at least it's not something to be neglected. Hitro talk 07:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a centenarian isn't what it used to be--many people are reaching that mark. Beyond that, there is nothing else to distinguish this person. Claim for notability based on one local newspaper article.Glendoremus (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While longevity may not warrant notability, being the last surviving member of a category is, in this case an extinct nationality. See https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=List_of_last_survivors_of_historical_events and https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Category:Last_living_survivors

146.1.1.1 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)DM Thompson[reply]

Delete If she was the last member of a nationality that might be interesting. The last person who was a member of a very small group of people who lived in an area with a unique status in international law making it jointly administered in two countries, especially when this status was revoked when she was about 6 and has no discernable impact on her life, is not a claim to notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is trivia. I don't see significant coverage about the subject and neither about the claim to notability. The sources are all human interested stores, and it seems to be a news spike. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find reliable sources.Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penkyampji[edit]

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

Previously deleted over a decade ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Penkyamp; claims to be resurrected using the Cantonese Wikipedia article (whose talk page features an accusation from 2016 that it is original research and should be deleted) and Facebook. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a hoax/OR, and fails WP:GNG. No mentions of the term in Google Books/Scholar. It is remotely possible it is based on some Chinese scholarly works that could lend it notability, but they are certainly not cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 22 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős–Bacon number[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfDd in 2011, and this is an ongoing RfC on Natalie Portman, I think it is a HOAX and per BJAON should be redirected to Erdos. That Bacon number is a joke thing anyway. L3X1 (distant write) 04:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. IsaacSt (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's silly, but it rates mentions in the Huffington Post, Forbes, NPR, etc. Being silly is not a criterion for deletion, else the Flying Spaghetti Monster and International Talk Like a Pirate Day would be looking over their respective shoulders. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the concept is widely known in mathematical (and broader scientific) circles, certainly no hoax. Far above the threshold of notability, whatever Natalie Portman's fans may think.

Incidentally, I take it from your comment, L3X1, that if this AfD fails, you will cease nominating articles for deletion? An honourable gesture, and one that brings much needed levity to this grim business. --pmj (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Individually the numbers are OK, but combined really seems silly. Pmj No, I'm not planning on stopping AfDs. I've been accused of being an unserious editor so that is why I'm stamping not-a-joke all over the place. Only about a third of my nominations don't go through, and most of that is good news for me, as I am an inclusionist. L3X1 (distant write) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with your aims, but criticism of that nomination was on point. Substandard articles should be improved first, nominated for deletion only if improvement is impossible. That takes actual effort though. --pmj (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's not a hoax or a joke - it's real! More editors will say here that it's been covered by reliable sources, and they'll all be correct. However, this is simply an example taken from Six degrees of separation that has gained popularity, and popularity is not the only criteria for a WP article. However popular, this particular example (which is one out of billions of possible examples) doesn't have any scientific significance or encyclopedic value. Einstein's IQ is 54 times more popular on Google than the number we are discussing here - including reliable sources (check it out: [13] vs. [14]), yet we don't start an article Einstein's IQ or similar, containing an arbitrary list of celebrities and how their IQ compares to Einstein's. This is because IQ merits its own article, but a particular example, even when very popular - only deserves a mention in the main article and in the article about the person used in the example. -- IsaacSt (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Notability is established by in-depth coverage, not incidental mentions or cobbled-together WP:SYNTH arguments. I will admit that I was at first I was lead to suspect a notable topic here, by virtue of the sheer number of sources and the title of the second source employed in the article. Someone clearly went through a lot of trouble to compile these sources and arrange them to suggest notability (without, I assume, understanding how and why such synthesis is discouraged on this project and cannot constitute notability in itself). However, once I dug a little deeper, it became obvious that this is not really an independently notable topic. Many of the sources employed in this article mention a Bacon number or an Erdős number. A couple mention both the concept of the Bacon number and the Erdős number. Exactly one source mentions the tandem "Erdős–Bacon number", and even then, it does so only incidentally, in one line.

However, the vast, vast, vast majority of the sources (about 95 of the more than one hundred sources currently used here) mention neither the Bacon number nor the Erdős number, nor the tandem concept, but are in fact just links to things like IMDB pages of various actors. In other words, blatant WP:Original research based on the synthesis of WP:Primary, non-WP:Reliable sources in order to compile a list of "Erdős–Bacon numbers" into sections which themselves would be WP:Trivia even if this concept abstractly qualified for notability in itself. In other words, this article is a massive tangle of OR, SYNTH, and Notability violations. Respondents to this AfD should definitely dig into the sourcing and contemplate the depth of the coverage in even that small handful of sources which actually reference this concept; I'm an old hand at AfD's and I nearly let this one sneak past me by not looking closely enough. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. pmj (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly not a hoax, seems to be plenty of mention of it, is there a rule that says AfDs need to be repeated every five years or so? Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy, There is no ruler requiring an AfD to be repeated, but not all AfD result in a permanent establishment of notability. Take a look at the prior AfDs for this subject, and you'll see that there were plenty of delete votes and unconvincing keeps, so I decided to run the bulls again. L3X1 (distant write) 23:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 2006, at the first AfD, it was a much newer concept, practically a neologism (and I'm not sure if WP:NEO existed at that point, although WP:NOT did]] and it still got a strong majority of keep !votes. In 2011, at the second AfD, there was an even stronger majority. The reason I ask your opinion about repeating AfDs is that you didn't give any reasoning for giving the article a new AfD beyond possibly being a hoax (clearly not), a bad joke (it is funny), and that the last AfD was in 2011, and I didn't see why having a previous AfD supported having another one given the consensus in both previous AfDs was keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for lack of a valid deletion rationale. Frivolity, uselessness, or "lack of scientific value" are not adequate reasons for deletion, and no case has been made that this is in any way a hoax. The Telegraph and USA Today articles already in the article give a clear case for WP:GNG notability, and the additional sources found by Clarityfiend only strengthen that case. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein Would you care to address Snow's argument? L3X1 (distant write) 23:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Snow is ignoring the small number of very good sources in the article (which establish notability) and arguing based only on the large number of not-so-good ones (which contribute nothing towards notability but are useful for the many individual factual claims in the article). That's not how notability works. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought I was pretty clear from the very outset of my comments (and throughout) that my !vote was predicated on the fact that even in that very small number of sources that directly treat this subject (actually, there is exactly one which uses the actual term "Erdős–Bacon number" which is the supposed nominal topic of this article, and it does so once), there is insufficient depth of coverage. I agree that even a very small number of articles can establish notability, even if the larger proportion are poor or even entirely unacceptable. Despite what you seem to be suggesting, I do not espouse the opposite view and can only suggest that you re-read my comments if you took that impression. However, note also, the very first criteria listed under WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." None of the sources I have seen thus far really qualify for significant coverage in my mind. I also disagree that the other sources I made reference to "contribute nothing towards notability but are useful for the many individual factual claims in the article"; I was clear that I was specifically referencing sources that are A) WP:PRIMARY, B) clearly non-WP:RS, and/or C) being used in a pretty obviously WP:OR/WP:SYNTH fashion. Those aren't valid for "contributing" to WP:verification (or anything) on this project, and they represent the lion's share of sources currently appearing in the article.

Of course it may be that the article gets retained and those issues get addressed individually, in a scale back of the content. I don't think this thing passes notability, but my opinion is not that strong on the matter. However, I do feel you've rather misread my original comments. I don't mind coming to different conclusions, certainly, but the argument you suggest I made, I did not in fact make. For what it's worth though, I agree that L3X1 left a lot to be desired in how they approached the opening to this discussion. I'd have !voted keep on the proposal if I had based my decision just on that proposal alone. In fact, I almost did. But when I looked closer at the sources, I came to a different conclusion. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, all three of the sources I linked to specify the "Erdős Bacon" or "Erdős–Bacon number". There are more, including "Actress/Mathematician Danica McKellar Explains What Her "Erdos/Bacon Number" Is" and professors bragging(?) about their numbers (5, 6, 8). Question #273 of the Buzzfeed quiz What Level Geek Are You? is Do you have an Erdős-Bacon number?Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning no offense, but I don't think I've ever before seen a collection of sources put forward in a content discussion that collectively better represent what a WP:Reliable source is not. "Three professors mention it for yucks on their university webpages" is not a standard for notability, nor is "Buzzfeed references it in their version of a Cosmo quiz for geeks". We need independent, significant coverage in reliable sources that speak to its relevance as an encyclopedic topic, not WP:Original research that it "must" be notable because Buzzfeed made a crack about it, and it shows up on a random faculty page or three. The first batch of sources you initially referenced were better than the ones immediately above, but I still am not seeing the "significant coverage", which is what WP:GNG requires. I will grant you, it's a near-borderline case, but I gotta come down on the side of non-notable here. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is so widespread, apparently some sort of badge of honor to university professors and well-known enough to be included in a quiz without further explanation seems to me to signify its notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following the argument that there are not reliable sources here. Google scholar, Google news, etc. give, in my opinion, plenty. Here are a few examples:
- Garrod, Charles, Maria Klawe, Iain Matthews, Laura Trutoiu, Edilson de Aguilar, Michael Ashley-Rollman, Harry Q. Bovik et al. "An Algorithm for Erdos-Bacon Number Minimization." A Record of The Proceedings of SIGBOVIK 2010 (2010): 3.
  - Yes, the is a conference proceedings paper, but the conference was peer reviewed, and the list of authors includes people who are considered experts in Number Theory (and is also very long as an attempt to lower the respective Erdos numbers)
- Mulcahy, Colm. Centenary of Mathematician Paul Erdős — Source of Bacon Number Concept The Huffington Post, March 26, 2013
  - Yes, it is basically a blog post, but it is written by an academic mathematician and seems to satisfy RS for blogs
- Mancini, Vince. Meet The Mathematician Who Inspired The Six Degrees Of Kevin Bacon Game. Uproxx, August 5, 2014
  - Uproxx has pros and cons, but isn't terrible and seems to satisfy RS
- Guerrieri, Matthew. [Six degrees of Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdos https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/music/2016/09/18/six-degrees-hungarian-mathematician-paul-erdos/mE8BVQp2vXQMSBQLPuLOzN/story.html], Boston Globe, September 19, 2016
  - Less in depth, but very reputable source
- Fisher, Len. What’s your Erdös-Bacon-Sabbath number? Times Higher Education, February 17, 2016
  - Another Blog, but reputable author and publisher and seems to satisfy RS for blogs
- Seckel, Scott. This Guy, He Knows People, ASU Now, March 13, 2016
  - Arizona State University blog, but still not terrible and seems to satisfy RS for blogs
As with the rest of Wikipedia, this page could use some cleanup, but Erdős numbers, Bacon numbers, Erdős–Bacon numbers, and even Erdős–Bacon-Sabbath numbers are all subjects of many reliably sourced published works and all, in my opinion, are suitable subjects for articles for inclusion in wikipedia. For what it is worth Erdős–Bacon number gets about 400 views per day, almost as many views as Erdős number.[15] Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the individual indices stand up on their own but combining them smacks of something made up one day. The extent of references that combine these measures is minimal, so the long list of names and scores is original research and/or synthesis.Glendoremus (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with clean-up: Although the concept of the Erdős–Bacon number appears to meet our criteria of significant coverage by reliable sources, some effort should be taken to reduce the amount of WP:SYN in the reporting of individual scores.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would support trimming it back to only those entries for which we can find the E-B number itself mentioned in a reliable source. The sources should be publications that describe the E-B numbers of the subjects, not the publications and movie credits that led to them having those numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A somewhat silly instance of the underlying principle, but a well-known and widely referenced one. Kinda like Pi Day. Science is allowed to have fun every so often. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources seem reasonable and this is a concept I have encountered "in the wild" a number of times which says something (albeit something modest) about its cultural relevance. Porphyro (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep--Easily passes WP:GNG.And it's not a hoax!Winged Blades^Godric 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources; definitely not a hoax article; "is a joke" is not a valid reason for deletion, as Wikipedia has many articles on *notable* jokes and parodies. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—It's silly and made up, but not unnotable (and Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon and Erdős number themselves are silly and made up and qualify as notable). For that matter Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number isn't being suggested for deletion here even though it's clearly more contrived than Erdős–Bacon number is on its own. The impetus of this seems to have been argument happening at the Natalie Portman wiki page, but this page's notability and the worthwhileness of mentioning it on another wiki page are unrelated (plenty of things not notable get mentioned on other wiki pages, and plenty of wiki pages don't mention other pages that link to them). There's not really a reason to remove this page other than frustration over an unrelated edit war. Dylan (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a widely used term in the sources, so it basically adds up to original research to write an article on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear GNG and hypothetical deletion rationale. Yes it's a silly concept. So what? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number, covering both in the same article (whichever one) and making the other one a redirect to it. It seems what is interesting and notable about these inventions is the way they demonstrate small-world interconnectedness across different domains, and the discussion that has occurred around them (i.e. as a cultural trope). In any case, it does seem perplexing that right now, unless I'm mistaken, they don't even refer to each other? Martinp (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well-attested concept, somebody has to keep nominating this. What the hell is the point? Bearian (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has since been sourced and improved so am closing this shit show of an AFD as Speedy Keep/Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stel Pavlou[edit]

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

Non notable screenwriter/novelist, Fails NOVELIST & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 04:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a long time fan of Pavlou, I noticed that his article was not updated with current information. And whomever started the article years ago never gave any citations. So, I spent time looking up current information and articles on Pavlou and offered up many citations to back them up. I also rearranged some of the original content, so it would flow better on the page. I have taken great care in the last few days to bring it up to standard. I removed the header stating that it was a live person and that it was lacking in quality content because I believed I had done my job in helping to update the information.

In reading some of the discussions from "Davey", it appears he may have some kind of issue with Pavlou personally, which he has denied. But it is difficult to look past his wording and reasoning.

As a new user to Wikipedia, I did my best to stay within guidelines and offer help to a neglected article. If I have misstepped in any way, I apologize. My intentions were only good. I see many many pages on Wiki that have no references at all. And I believe that Pavlou, being a notable screenwriter mentioned on IMDB for a cult classic movie, and his book Decipher being a bestseller is enough to keep his place on Wikipedia. If I have done anything in error, Mr. Pavlou's page should not be punished for it. Michellabellla (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article talkpage. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he may have some kind of issue with Pavlou personally - Please tell me how I can have an issue with someone whom I have never even heard of?, ::Needless to say that's utter bullshit and this whole campaign with you and the IP is laughable,

Now back on topic whilst your edits are appreciated in short the person is still non notable and as far as I can see still fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just created an account because I am so angry. I am not the person who posted above. Kindly treat people with respect.Denverite2017

Keep It took two seconds to see that the writer's first movie, Formula 51, staring Samuel L Jackson and Robert Carlyle, was notable for reaching number one in the box office at the time of release, toppling Peter Jackson from the top slot. His second script was an adaptation for David Fincher of Rendezvous with Rama, the Arthur C Clarke novel, for Morgan Freeman. His debut novel Decipher sold into a dozen languages or more, and is considered worthy enough by Wiki to have it's own entry. It seems curious to me that the novels and films in question are worthy of their own wiki entries but the writer of them isn't.
Moved from article talkpage. –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being in films doesn't automatically mean they're notable, Please read WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey, it doesn't say he was IN a film, it says he wrote a box office number one... it also appears on the EMPIRE best 100 movies of the 00s, again referenceable in the premier film magazine in the UK. That, by definition IS notaeable and should end this. ----69SwedishMeatballs (I'll eventually get the hang of how wiki works)

I know I obviously meant being a writer, Unfortunately one source won't help I'm afraid, Inre to getting the hang of this place - It becomes easier I promise :), Everyone struggles just takes some getting used to lol, –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a good handful of new citations from respected news sources/newspaper agencies including The Independent, The BBC, The Standard and the Times, U.K. I believe this should be worthy of acceptance. Thanks. Michellabellla (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI've worked with Stel, producing the cover for his book decipher and can vouch for him as an author and a great one at that, he is a man of integrity, and he deserves more recognition than he gets at the moment, his book Decipher is terrific, and would make a great movie itself, I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to delete his biography here! He is an author worthy of mention! Glen Saville (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable genre author with books released by major publishing houses and reviews in Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, and many other outlets. Also the writer for a motion picture starring Samuel L Jackson. Yes, the article needs more references and work but that doesn't take away from the subject's notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep, even before the recent improvements. When I created this article as a substub many years ago, it would not have passed current guidelines for demonstrating notability ;) but it does now. – SJ + 22:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there was a lot of self-promotion in the current article; I believe I've cut that out & fixed the overall style. – SJ + 23:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SJ. I made a lot of mistakes and feel like I have accepted blame for being overly excited about the editing process. Mr. Pavlou's blog stated that he had a new book coming out and I happily shared the info. I have learned a lot in the last few days via trial and error...a lot of errors. But thank you for working with me and understanding my efforts were innocently executed. I know better now. Thanks. Michellabellla (talk) 00:26, 23 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Wyse[edit]

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

Article does not cite references to justify notability and has been created with promotional content/tone with the intent of promoting the upcoming occasion. Refer Talk:Viola_Wyse TopCipher (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tone issues have been fixed, and sources cited satisfy the notability baseline.--ragesoss (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a First Nations chief may be able to qualify for an article under WP:NPOL #2 ("Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") if they can actually be sourced over WP:GNG for career coverage that was published while they were chief, they're not automatically entitled to have articles just because they existed. Politically speaking, they're equivalent to mayors of municipalities, not to national heads of state, and thus are judged by the same inclusion or exclusion standards as mayors — and the standard for mayors is "if shown to clear GNG", not "all mayors automatically get articles because mayor, regardless of sourceability". And for sourcing, what we have here is primarily her paid-inclusion death notices in the classifieds — a type of sourcing that would exist for every single person who ever lived, regardless of their notability or lack thereof in life — and one glancing namecheck of her existence in an article, published a year and a half after her death, which isn't substantively about her. This simply is not enough sourcing to clear GNG, and nothing in the article is significant enough to exempt her from having to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. Tone issues are fixed. 2. There's no connection to any event or occasion. 3. Her notability as first female chief of her tribe and her accomplishments therein are documented in the 1,600 word obituary article from Nanaimo Daily News, accessed on Lexis Nexus -- that was not a paid piece. There is work to do in adding Firekeepers of the Twenty-First Century: First Nations Women Chiefs by Cora J. Voyageur (Editor) (2008) and developing the page out a little, however references satisfy WP:GNG for a stub. Shameran81 (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keeping in mind that this article is still a stub, it's sources satisfy the notability requirement. Viola Wyse has been one of the main subjects of a doctoral thesis and is mentioned in another. For what it's worth, her obit also appears on an article entitled Notable deaths of 2009. As far as Bearcat's comparison to mayors go, you can find articles about non-indigenous, male Canadian mayors that are smaller in size and with less citations than Wyse's, without being flagged as a stub or for deletion. Louize5 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any "articles about non-indigenous, male Canadian mayors that are smaller in size and with less citations than Wyse's", then bring 'em on and they'll get listed for deletion. It's certainly not a thing that entitles a person to have an article kept in and of itself, though it's true that it's impossible for us to prevent somebody from trying to write an article about anything they want — which is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions: the existence of an Article B that has no stronger basis for inclusion than Article A has isn't proof that Article A should be kept; it's proof that Article B should be deleted too and nobody's seen it yet. But a place has to have a population close to 100K before "person was a mayor" is prima facie grounds for an article regardless of whether it already demonstrates a clean GNG pass or not — so no, we wouldn't typically keep mayors of places this size or smaller that weren't significantly better sourced than this is. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The sources are quite weak, and I couldn't find better ones. The obituaries both appear to be paid-placement, and the news articles mention her only in her role as representative of her nation. The best sources I could find are [16] and [17]. Consider merging this page into Snuneymuxw First Nation unless better sources can be found to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I hadn't seen the comments from User:Shameran81 about off-line sources. If she received a significant, unpaid obituary, and is covered in Firekeepers of the Twenty-First Century, she should pass WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Shameran81, whose arguments (which I take at face value) are persuasive. The source contributed by Louize5 also helps. We need to be open to --- and in fact encouraging of -- interesting articles to be written which depend on non-online, sometimes hard to find sources. Martinp (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ciera Eastin[edit]

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

Not notable enough for wikipedia page. Fails WP:GNG, no sources. Unlike other Survivor players that have an article, she is only known for Survivor. Also not a winner. Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 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 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Only participating in Survivor, even for three seasons, is not enough to achieve notability guidelines since she did not win a season (and I think winning a season is pushing it, but that is a separate discussion). The non-winner person articles have clearly achieved some other notability like being a professional sports player or entertainer. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CdeCuba Art Magazine[edit]

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

Non notable, PROMO listing. L3X1 (distant write) 02:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely designed to drive traffic to site. scope_creep (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distant write) 03:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon Midnight[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking significant independent support. reddogsix (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage, no notability. Largoplazo (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN - Fails music notability requirements. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ouachita Hills Academy[edit]

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

i do not believe that Ouachita Hills Academy is notable also this article is promotional of the school as this article violates NPOV wikipedia is not an advocacy platform also there are zero citations so you cannot verify the claims of this article Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines unclear. My searches using the "find sources" links turned up virtually no independent coverage. Per NSCHOOLS, this article must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to be retained, and that would ordinarily settle the matter.
However, the 2017 schools RFC instructs: "Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media." I don't have the resources to dig through local sources, so am I prohibited from voting "delete" here? Or does the RFC require only that someone in the discussion perform the search before the discussion can close in favor of deletion? Or is the close merely exhorting us to perform local searches, not mandating it? Rebb ing 23:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched Nexis and couldn't find substantial coverage in local news, Rebbing. I would have thought most US local newspaper content is available online in any case (I think this part of the RfC close refers more to non-Western contexts). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cordless Larry: Oh, duh! Of course it would be available online: if not on the Web directly, at least as scans in a newspaper database. Thank you. Rebb ing 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for my reasons given above and on the basis of Cordless Larry's search. Rebb ing 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found, even in paid databases. James (^talk/_contribs) 21:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call4care[edit]

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

Non-notable unreferenced article about a charity. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no equivalent articles on the Dutch Wikipedia about this subject or its parent firms (though promotional articles on Youfone have been deleted there several times: [18]). My searches on Call4care and Happybel are not finding better than listings and passing mention. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Strawberry Shorts Film Festival[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this film festival. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Lewandowski[edit]

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

Notability is not asserted by sources or by article content. Quasar G ^{t - c} 15:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She has a reasonable amount of coverage in The New York Times[19][20] and other New York media. However, since it all seems to be in relation to her theater, we should consider moving this article to Chocolate Factory Theater. Pburka (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.Mentions and bits here and there, even in the NYTimes, doesn't meet GNG. There is no wide coverage of this person or her theater. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The NY Times piece is a human interest story in the regional section, not the thing notability is made of. The 1 source here is to her own organizations website. Nothing showing that her organization is more notable than hundreds of other minor city theatres.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 27 March 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuria Kato[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found.

Previous AfD closed as "keep" in 2006 (via a DVR) on the strength of arguments "the 100-film notability test is given at WP:PORN BIO" (since deprecated) and the number of DVDs (non-useful criteria).

10 years on, I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real assertion of notability under current standards. Little or no independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornographic film actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we no longer keep articles just because the subject has been in a very high number of non-notable films, so there is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - the individual whom this nomination was made on the behalf of was blocked indefinitely at the time of their original nomination (WP:SKCRIT#4). No one else has advocated for the deletion of this article. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination if anyone so desires. (non-admin closure) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harsshit Abhiraj[edit]

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

Semi-procedural nomination due to the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Harsshit Abhiraj. I didn't realize the page was moved shortly after the MfD was started. This remedies that, and this venue is now also more appropriate. Pinging WorldBoy, the only participant in the prior deletion discussion. result: speedy keep. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the page should be deleted wikibot 07:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 21 March 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 per consensus of a failure to meet WP:PROF (Indication of puppetry was also weighed). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. P. Sheoran[edit]

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

Non Notable Prof Uncletomwood (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the director of a law college and previously serving as the head of the department, and the dean of Faculty of law at a university is enough to pass WP:PROF. — Yash^talk stalk 23:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It certainly isn't. 9 GS cites fails WP:Prof#C1 by a very large margin. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dean is not a high enough administrative position for automatic notability (he's not head of a whole university) and we don't have the evidence of scholarly impact needed for notability that way (WP:PROF#C1). Merely being published is also not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough for GNG and the subject is the dean of a college/department, not the university. Thsi is not enough for WP:PROF. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - His work on federal government is remarkable. Director of a law college and previously serving as the head of the department, and the dean of Faculty of law at a university is enough to pass WP:PROF.16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)HariSinghw (talk)
- No it is not. Which criterion of WP:PROF do you think being dean passes? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep his work on federal government is remarkable and he is Constitution expert in India.47.9.13.108 (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 47.9.13.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and refine by adding "Pittsfield" for better results. --do ncr am 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails WP:GNG with zero independent sources. It was nominated for deletion in 2014 and kept despite having no independent sources at that time. None have presented themselves in the three years since that discussion. TM 00:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I "!voted" in the previous AFD in 2014, in agreement with User:DGG for one (perhaps all the participants then should be notified?). Again, there's assertion in the article that this is the fourth Reform Jewish congregation to be formed in the U.S. (it was founded in 1869), and there is strong likelihood that substantial off-line coverage of the historic congregation exists and can be used to develop the article eventually. It doesn't matter than no local person happened to do that development since the last AFD....there are tons of notable historic topics in Wikipedia that languish for a decade waiting for the interested and informed person to come along, which is fine.

Searching more broadly yields coverage in Berkshire Eagle, e.g. Howard Dean speaks there and there's some material about the "England Brothers" which could add to the article in this (including that "Moses England helped found Congregation Anshe Amunim of Pittsfield in 1869, and allowed religious services to be held in a building that he owned on Fenn and North streets until the congregation purchased its first building in 1927. / 'For the first 60 years we couldn't have survived without Moses and his family,' said Anshe's Rabbi Emeritus Harold I. Salzmann." More about the England Brothers is relevant to the article.) (watch out, you get just five free Berkshire Eagle views)
This is not a big deal, but notable rabbi Perry Nussbaum came to Anshe Amunim per this book The Quiet Voices: Southern Rabbis and Black Civil Rights, 1880s to 1990s and (that can be mentioned in this article), while the Congregation Beth Israel (Jackson, Mississippi) article fails to say that, in fact says otherwise.

--do ncr am 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (e.g. that Wikipedia has other articles that are improperly sourced and likely not notable either) is not a valid rationale for keeping an article. None of the articles you cite here are about the Temple Anshe Amunim in substance. That notable people visited a certain place is also not a claim to notability on Wikipedia. Lastly, the age of something is also not a claim to notability. It should be clear, given three years of time and despite spurious claims to the contrary, that multiple, independent, in-depth sources establishing notability do not exist for this topic. That's the benchmark with which we must judge this and all articles.--TM 20:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, sorry if my wording mislead you, but Nussbaum didn't merely "visit"; he came to be the rabbi, although he apparently didn't stay long. It's worth mentioning in the article. Some other points:

The synagogue and its rabbi are social/political leaders. Josh Breindel is speaking out, is taking in Syrian refugees, etc., etc. you see in the Google hits. The synagogue itself is a social center, it is the site of community meetings.
The congregation has included, and probably still does include, powerful families and persons. Numerous New York Times obituaries and wedding announcements, scoffed at in the previous AFD, are actually evidence of that. One of the obituaries was for Armand V. Feigenbaum (died in 2014). I bet the "alumni" of this congregation would stack up pretty well against the alumni lists in many university's wikipedia articles.
The synagogue has an endowed speaker series, funded by the Temple Anshe Amunim Feigenbaum Lecture Endowment. That brought Howard Dean (former presidential candidate, former chair of the Democratic National Committee) to speak to an "overflow crowd" in August 2016. A speaker in 2014 was Michael Kopiec (currently a redlink on Wikipedia, apparently this writer), on the Holocaust.
The synagogue building itself received some architectural awards, per a synagogue webpage, which I don't doubt to be true.
It is the fourth-oldest congregation of its denomination in the United States. I think we can afford to have an article about the first five in every denomination.
This is not your average place of worship. Does yours bring national- or world-level speakers on a regular basis, and serve as hub for political and social discussion?
I happen to have contributed to Wikipedia articles on several thousand obscure churches, one-room schoolhouses, fraternal halls, etc. across the United States, many many of which are deemed notable (and achieved recognition in the National Register of Historic Places) in part because they were locally important community centers. I have zero doubt whether this synagogue could achieve NRHP listing if they cared to, for the combination of its history, the building architecture, the social/community centeredness.
The deletion nominator over-uses "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" to dismiss stuff. IMO, that argument is outdated. At this point in Wikipedia, the fact that other articles are similar to one at AFD becomes more and more and more relevant. We should be working to make Wikipedia more consistent, not saying that everything is haphazard so nothing else is relevant. --do ncr am 21:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reading Doncram's laundry list, I'm struck by an important fact: he doesn't mention a single notability criterion this temple meets. Having an endowed speaker series, however much a couple important people have spoken, does not qualify an institution for an article. Receiving some (non-notable) architecture awards does not make a subject notable ... that, and Doncram should know far too bloody well that a primary source can never be used to buttress notability. Being the (allegedly) fourth-oldest congregation of a denomination in a country is not notable, else we'd be presuming notability to some Bahai temple in Bhutan with 11 worshipers. (This quite aside from that the article asserts, without a source, that it's the fourth-oldest Reform congregation in New England, not the United States.) Being a (so-called) "hub for political and social discussion" is not, in of itself, notable. And, above and beyond the rest, Doncram's personal opinion as to whether a subject could achieve NRHP status is the height of irrelevancy; the fact on the ground is that it hasn't. 0+0+0+0+0=0. What qualifies a subject for a Wikipedia article isn't a "I think it's important" argument; it's meeting the relevant notability criteria.
That being said, WP:V is clear: if reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail are not produced, an article on the subject cannot be sustained. It does matter, in point of fact, that no one has come forward -- for that matter, what's stopping Doncram? -- to source the article. The way Wikipedia works, and a key reason deletion policy exists, is not that we let unsourced articles languish indefinitely. It's that we delete them until and unless they're properly sourced. For my part, I've no objection to userfying the article to Doncram's user pages until such time as he can source it properly, if he believes it can be. Ravenswing 01:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For me, it isn't about what one user said or neglected to say - it's about the question at hand, i.e. notability. Once notable, notability doesn't go away, ever. Therefore, for this institution not to be notable, we'd have to assume it did not receive any reliable coverage throughout its 148 years of serving the community. The other alternative is that the reliable coverage is difficult to source due to the fact that the internet has been around for a very short period of time comparing to this long history. While the former might be true, the latter is much more likely, and I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and a few more years until someone spends the necessary time in the dark cellars of the MA archives to scan century old documents. Unsourced material has to be removed immediately only if it's contentious BLP material (WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION). The rest is left for the common sense of the editors... -- IsaacSt (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If proof of sources exist someday, then you can recreate the article. However, that sources might exist in the dark recesses of a local newspaper somewhere is not legitimate rationale for keeping the article.--TM 16:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I've found [21], [22] and a few others, and updated the article accordingly. Hadassah Magazine is certainly a national-level, independent, reliable source (with half a million readers). Even if you somehow still believe everything presented so far doesn't establish notability, don't start the entire discussion about that again, since my point above (about common sense) still applies. If nothing else, the sources surge the likelihood that the notability is verifiable to the sky. -- IsaacSt (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously a 147-year-old temple is notable. I have added reliable sources to back up most information. The temple links were all non-working for me, so I deleted the bit of information credited to them. Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:V, coverage in WP:RS. If the coverage so far found isn't in-depth, that doesn't imply historic importance isn't clear (as in WP:NGEO). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can pass WP:GNG guidelines now, based on the addition of references to independent reliable sources after it was nominated for AFD. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Low Mays[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Insufficient notability to pass notability standards. All references are invalid. 258 listeners on Soundcloud. 14k on Youtube. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. News search with both Chinese and English names only revealed a few passing mentions. Deryck C. 18:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG criteria. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources has been neither presented nor found. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:23, 27 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiki Ōtsuki[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The article is cited to directory listings, industry promo materials, and otherwise unsuitable sources. The awards listed do not rise to the level of significant. Significant RS coverage not found. The ja.wiki article is equally unconvincing for suitability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Apparently she was awarded the Best Actress from DMM.R18 in 2016, and DMM.com is the biggest porno portal in Japan. This is a famous award that is much-covered in Japan (no lack of sources on the jawiki for that claim). So based on that, I say Keep. 00:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underbar dk (talk • contribs)
Keep per Underbar dk. --Gstree (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her reception of the aforementioned DMM award was given individual coverage by Tokyo Sports, Nikkan Gendai, and Shūkan Playboy (the first two of these are among the top 25 largest newspapers in the world by circulation.) --Cckerberos (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see good sources online, in addition to arguments above. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Davey2010. Montanabw^(talk) 02:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For people rejecting her DMM, Adult Broadcasting Awards, and Pink Grand Prix awards as insignificant, what Japanese awards do you consider significant? --Cckerberos (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear lack of coverage in indepdent reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three publications I linked to aren't independent or reliable? --Cckerberos (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cckerberos: you need to add your publications to the article to take effect. Can you please do that? --Gstree (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited coverage is flimsy and pretty generic, while the article itself includes no nontrivial RS biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:16, 27 March 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. Arguments that the article failed to meet the criteria for WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN were stronger. Determination of consensus also took into account both the ambiguity of the nominator's statements and the lack of valid argument in two of the keep comments. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Green[edit]

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

no longer wanted Medic37 (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medic37, do you have a valid reason for deleting the article? If so, please state the reason why the article does not meet one of the guidelines. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medic37 What do you mean "no longer wanted"? By who? Do you have a connection to the subject? Cookshat (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although nomination is inadequate, notability cannot be found. Subject has published some articles that have attracted inadequate interest. Just publishing stuff is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Indeed, but there are plenty of independent sources referenced here, such as the work on Blockchain, or winning the City of Perth election, and certainly not the Cambridge and Curtin University sources, which suggests she meets WP:PROF. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which category of WP:Prof do you claim is met? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep as an WP:Academic. She has made a name for herself since her fellowship at Curtin University researching and writing about energy, infrastructure, climate change, and sustainability - and her work has been cited in scholarly articles and in some books. There are 162 (click on page 17) articles from a search on news... and these seem to be mostly about this Jemma Green. She also garners speaking engagements on these topics. I would feel stronger if there were more publications that reference her work and greater industry / media recognition in terms of awards, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possibility of the subject passing any category of WP:Prof. Her cites on GS are miniscule and what else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I stated my vote and my reasoning and don't have anything new to say.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perth is a small town with 11,385 on the electoral roll ^[1], however as a Public Servant she has some relevance Cookshat (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perth is a major city with a population of just over 2 million people and some 1.4 million registeredd voters. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Facts - The City of Perth, which Green has been elected to the Council, has only 11,385 voters on the electoral roll, as per the exact citation above at the electoral commission website. Velella is confusing the designation of the area called Perth with the actual City of Perth. The area called Perth has dozens of small Councils within its boundaries, of which the City of Perth, is one. Cookshat (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Australian Academy of Science is seeking to get more representation of female scientists on Wikipedia talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC) — Jeffreymarkrogers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing promotional bios of minor politicions. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. No sign of passing WP:PROF. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She passes neither WP:PROF (too low citation count, no major awards, etc) nor WP:POLITICIAN (elected office is too minor). And the sources we have for her, while perhaps adequate for the factual detail they source, do not provide the high profile, editorial independence, and depth of coverage of the subject that I would expect for WP:GNG. I am sympathetic to the case that we should have better coverage of female scientists on Wikipedia, but the way to do that is to write articles about the many significant female scientists who are still missing from Wikipedia, not to try to prop up the insignificant ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For a really notable female scientist take a look at Michelle Simmons. Wikipedia needs to have more BLPs on people of this calibre assuming, of course, that they give their permission to be written about. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

That's nothing!! :-P Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment might be construed to be derogatory to the person I mentioned. You might like to redact it per WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I have reason to believe the nominator's rationale is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and I am trying to follow this up off-wiki. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, SaintAviator lets talk 21:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly not notable as a politician, not sufficient as an academic. There are bits and pieces from several areas, but the subject doesn't appear notable enough in any one sphere. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.elections.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/2015%20Local%20Government%20Ordinary%20Elections%20Report.pdf

Strong delete She comes no where close to passing any notability criteria for academics. Being elected a member of the Perth Council is not a claim to notability. She has no actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per David and John's comments above. Ms Green does not appear to have yet had a significant academic career, and the other claims to notability are not sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 27 March 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] ttps://www.elections.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/2015%20Local%20Government%20Ordinary%20Elections%20Report.pdf

[1]