Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Starburst9 (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 28 May 2017 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy J. Kleinplatz). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Lots of participation here with good policy/guideline based arguments. Unfortunately they are all over the place, often citing the exact same guideline with different conclusions. Given the level of participation I doubt a third relisting will add clarity. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy J. Kleinplatz

Peggy J. Kleinplatz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Doesn't meet PROF. Starburst9 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing evidence of meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Search results noted above establish identity (as a therapist with academic appointments), but not notability (they do not provide any "substantial" coverage of the subject herself). Banglange (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, comment by Starburst9 is misleading ie. "That's not what those hits show: They are mostly local to her (Ottawa), tid-bits in tabloid magazines (Chatelane), or hits to sites selling her book." clicking on Montanabw google search, the 3rd 6th entry on the 1st page is none of these, it is to an article in the Canada-wide Globe & Mail about a study carried out by Kleinplatz and her team on sex and aging, just saying. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG. As for Starburst9, if local sources are reliable sources, they do not need to be dismissed just because they are local. They can be used to establish notability. In addition, she and reviews of her work turn up on HighBeam and EBSCOhost. I'll try to add to the article later if I have time. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the nominator for the article is ineligible to !vote since their deletion nomination is already a !vote. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From PROF: "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Being HighBeam or EBSCOhost isn't enough either: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." Banglange (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Banglange: I'm not arguing PROF. As you can see, I said "Passes GNG," above. I see enough sources to pass GNG and I'm going to add them to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a number of sources to the article that discussed her and her work. These are not items that were authored by her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
< 27 May 29 May >

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. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 12:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rav Vadgama

Rav Vadgama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and can't seem to find reliable sources the subject in question does not seem to pass basic GNG  FITINDIA  20:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Purist

The Purist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This "Bandcamp" article was the only source found, however, this suggests that Bandcamp exists for the self-promotion of bands, so likely the bio there is self-published. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian pick at glastonbury https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/28/glastonbury-2015-what-to-look-forward-to-on-sunday
Producer of the year award http://wordplaymagazine.com/2013/03/uncategorized/wordplays-best-of-2012-awards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.146.198 (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eluru. MBisanz talk 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatraopet, Eluru

Venkatraopet, Eluru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability issue. Normal residential area in a city. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try also alternate spellings:
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
  • Redirect, probably to Eluru. This could be notable automatically as a populated place in West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, but I am not immediately finding its population. It has a post office, the Venkata Rao Peta post office, e.g. see info here. Since there is no substantial content to the article, redirecting to Eluru, preferably to a section on its neighborhoods, won't lose much, until there is substantial content with sources to create a separate article. --doncram 14:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  11:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Pen family

Le Pen family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content-free unsourced stub. All relevant information is already available at dab page Le Pen. No source is provided discussing the family independently from political activities of the three members mentioned. — JFG talk 14:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. — JFG talk 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:deletion is not cleanup. Do you doubt that the Le Pens form a political family, and that that political family is a notable family? Clearly the article needs cleanup, and clearly the topic itself is notable. It just needs to be completely rewritten. A start would be WP:SUMMARYSTYLE sections for the three politicians. Then we can add more about the political grouping. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. A good start would be to find WP:RS discussing them as a family. — JFG talk 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The family clearly exists, any matter pertaining to the family as a whole would need new RSes, summarizing the family members (and that would be supported by RSes since they already state how these three are related) would not involve any synthesis, existing sources from the personal biography articles are enough to support summarizing that they are related to each other, and that each is politically active, and that each is a member of the National Front. That would be cleanup. Additional material treating the family as a whole would need to be added, with new sources. So, cleanup is not deletion. Cleaning it up does not involve synthesis, it would create a stub or start class article instead, sorely needing family-only material. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I putted some sources about the family. Torygreen84 (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We do have articles about political families - for instance, Kennedy family and Bush family - and those are well written, clearly notable, and in line with guidelines. So it absolutely can be done without violating WP:SYNTHESIS. The question is whether the Le Pen family rises to the same level as those two examples. If so, it should be kept and rewritten (remember, AFD is not cleanup, so the current state of the article is irrelevant). If not, I would support a redirect to Le Pen over deletion. I don't know enough about French politics to know whether they qualify. Smartyllama (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirect is the best solution at this stage. — JFG talk 20:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this would be feasible is we had sources discussing them as a family. There are plenty such sources for the Kennedys, the Bushes or the Clintons, I don't see one for the Le Pens, so anything we write here would be WP:OR or WP:SYN. — JFG talk 20:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems a justifiable article given the French establishment's fondness for dynastic continuities of power / influence / employment / celebrity status / etc. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even if only as a disambig page (which is what the French Wikipedia has it as) or redirect - it's at least useful for navigation. This would also meet notability threshold for an article, given the family dynamics of this prominent family have been well-reported on (father clashing with daughter, relationships with the niece, etc.). Neutralitytalk 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a disambig page is fine, and we already have one: Le Pen, with the three generations represented. This is why I thought this "family" page is useless (unless of course some sourced material is added). I don't care personally whether we have an article on this family, but if we do it should be sourced not synthesized. — JFG talk 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to a redirect given that the family article is pretty bad. But I certainly want to leave the door open for a future better version of this article, given that there are sources that directly talk about the family that could sustain an article. E.g.,
I'm sure much more in the French language, of course. Neutralitytalk 04:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks for scouting those. Perhaps some day someone will actually write the beginning of a real article based on such sources. The current stub deserves only a redirect to the dab page. I am actually quite surprised that the French Wikipedia hasn't built anything but a list of the family members either. — JFG talk 08:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. The fact that three or four notable people are related to each other is not, in and of itself, the definition of a notable political family — the ability to get the group over WP:GNG as a group is what matters. For example, there are many more notable Kennedys and many more notable Bushes than there are notable LePens — and in both cases, significant numbers of those notable family members don't even have the main family surname (see, frex, all the Smiths and Lawfords and Beales and Shrivers and Schwarzeneggers and Schlossbergs in the Kennedy family tree) and thus would never be locatable from the base Kennedy surname page in the first place. But all we've got here is four notables, of whom three are already on the surname page LePen as it is and the fourth is Marine's husband; there are only two people on that dab page outside of this group; and we have to depend on non-notable failers of WP:NPOL to pad this list out with anybody else — so that's just not enough noteworthy content to justify a standalone list of the politicians as a separate topic from the surname page. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Janković

Bogdan Janković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually Bogdan Janković meets the specifics of WP:NHOCKEY, namely, 1. Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league. He played, inter alia, for HK Partizan a professional team in the Serbian Hockey League. The Serbian Hockey League is the top league for ice hockey in Serbia. According to its Wikipedia article (not a reliable source) HK Partizan has won 20 national championships and three cups, and is the most successful ice hockey team in Serbia. In 2010 he played for HK Spartak Subotica a professional team in the Serbian Hockey League. Since 2011 he has played, and coached, for HK Vitez of the Serbian Hockey League. If I have misread the guideline, my apologies; I don't usually work on ice hockey articles, but came across this one while looking for Bogdan Janković (1868-1918) educator and Serbian nationalist. --Bejnar (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bejnar: He does not actually meet WP:NHOCKEY; there is a linked list of what is considered a "top professional league" and no serbian league is included.18abruce (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the "linked list" is an essay, not a guideline. The "linked list" seems to suffer from systemic bias toward English speaking leagues. Since 2009 Serbia has played in the "big leagues". In fact Bogdan Janković played on the team that moved them from Division II to Division I. I agree that he did not play in the Olympics, nor did he play on the national team after it entered Division I. As best I can determine he has played about 180 professional games in the Serbian League, but I have been unable so far to find recent data. He seems to meet the spirit of WP:NHOCKEY, if not the exact parameters. As to WP:GNG, coverage seems to be about par (or a tad more) for notable, albeit non-superstar, ice hockey players. --Bejnar (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@18abruce: Most of the references are in Serbian, hence "Богдан Јанковић" is one appropriate search term. To avoid false drops it can be combined with forms of the word hockey, "Хокеј", "хокејашки", "xокејашка", or the name of one of his teams such as: "Витез", "Спартак" or "Партизан". Once a useful website is found, results can be expanded with Google's site: function. See, for example, this report of a match where he scored three of the seven winning goals (other players scored one each). The two other arguably notable people with the name "Bogdan Janković" are the current playwright/director and the late 19th, early 20th century educator. --Bejnar (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did do serbian searches, as I do to find correct spellings of names for when I detail their national team games. Non of the found sources were above routine coverage. Whether or not NHOCKEY is an essay or not, Serbian hockey is nowhere near the "big leagues" in any kind of coverage. His national team coverage is way below consensus to meet NHOCKEY as well. You said, "if I have misread the guideline, my apologies", well I tried to point out that yes, you did misread it---playing in the top league in your own country is irrelevent in NHOCKEY, not mentioned there. The linked list provided is there to help the reader understand what is meant by the different criteria, and changes through consensus.18abruce (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 06:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kelapstick(bainuu) 23:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.K. Srivastava

K.K. Srivastava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from the primary sources used as references in this article, the extensive puffery, and the fact that the subject himself appears to have been involved in editing it, I am uncertain this individual meets Wikipedia's notability requirements: the various awards noted appear to be from non-notable organizations (on which I could sometimes find little or no information on the Internet), the interviews do not appear to be from recognized reliable sources (those at knotlitmagazine.com I could not locate even using the Wayback Machine, one is a Youtube video, another comes from what might be a personal blog, etc.). Having written reviews of the works of others does not mean the subject himself warrants an article, and neither does having one's work included in an anthology. Links to some evidence of having received these awards, and evidence of the awards being from notable organizations, would go a long way towards satisfying a notability claim, but without these, the notability of the subject looks thin. KDS4444 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 08:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Henze

Karl Henze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link. The best is one para entry in Hitler's Stuka Squadron but it's insufficient, and the rest are passing mentions. Franz Kurowski's Luftwaffe Aces is non RS. No de.Wiki article. Successful completion of missions (# of sorties flown) is not part of SOLDIER.

Per the outcome of the discussion on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists.

In this case, the redirect has been challenged with the rationale that the subject "commanded one of the first bomber wings of the Bundesluftwaffe". No sources have been offered, while command of a wing in peacetime does not meet SOLDIER's criterion of "commanding a significant number of troops in battle". Significant RS coverage on this career in the German Air Force is not found either: link; Kurowski again (Denied Paternity: Wehrmacht Officers Created the Bundeswerh) is non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is probably only one that focuses on him specifically, but his war service seems to have him mentioned, by my count, in at least 40 books (I stopped counting, probably a lot more than that. That's just books, I didn't check articles at all). Considering *also* he is Recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, and he flew like 1000(!) sorties or something, I think all up, this warrants at least a short page for him in Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recipient of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves. That means he essentially won it twice. Although its ubiquity means the Knight's Cross cannot be considered the highest award, it is certainly important enough to be notable if won more than once. It is certainly on a par with an American winning the DSC twice or a Briton winning the DSO twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOLDIER does not apply in this case. Only the awards for valour are covered by SOLDIER #1, not for meritorious service / successful completion of missions. In any case, SOLIDER is just an essay and is thus subordinate to GNG. We should make sure that Karl Henze has been a subject of significant coverage in independent RS before keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the distinction did matter, you appear to be making an unsupported assumption as to what his Knight's Crosses were awarded for. As far as I'm concerned, it's covered by WP:SOLDIER and that, despite "only" being an essay, is generally recognised as the notability standard for military biographies. In any case, I think there's a very good case for also assuming the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves is covered by WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another bio where one would think given the high award of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and missions flown, one could expand the article with greater detail (cited to RS sources). I don't write on Luftwaffe pilots but I would think someone could expand the article accordingly. It is bare-bones. Kierzek (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Henze did not receive his awards and flew over 1,000 combat missions. Rather he received the KC because he completed 430 combat missions and earned the Oakleaves because he completed 1,000 combat missions. Yet Wikipedia articles do not honor people for a certain number of combat missions completed, but reflect significant coverage by RS sources. Apart from the KC directories the usual suspects here are notorious militaria writer Franz Kurowski with Verleugnete Vaterschaft. Wehrmachtsoffiziere schufen die Bundeswehr (2000) and former Luftwaffe propagandist George Brütting with Das waren die Stuka Asse. There are also a few lines on him in Mike Spick's Luftwaffe Bomber Aces (2001), a militaria book devoid of any notes and featuring a very small bibliography. So you might put together a career summary as for nearly any other KC recipient, but I do not consider that significant coverage by RS. Bomber pilots did not receive as much as attention as fighter pilots, Hans-Ulrich Rudel being the most notable exception, and neither did Henze.--Assayer (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment -- The keep arguments at this AfD are along the lines of WP:ITSNOTABLE and / or "coverage exists". These are not valid deletion discussion arguments and I believe that they should be discounted. Furthermore, such interpretations of SOLDIER is not consistent with the close of the discussion regarding the "Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners": link, which showed that for a high proportion of Knight's Cross winners, irrespective of grade, significant RS coverage does not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He meets WP:SOLDIER 5 as a Gruppenkommandeur of a unit that specifically saw military action (this is the same level as the Group, which is specifically cited in criterion 5 of SOLDIER). I have the impression that most of the Delete contributors have either not read the article under discussion, or WP:SOLDIER, clearly enough: we should not be having this debate. The oak leaves, in this case, are a complete red herring. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is not much to read about Karl Hanke. Criterion 5 of WP:SOLDIER as such does not presume notability. Rather it is but one criterion to presume that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify as notable. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. To mention Hanke in a list, is exactly what is being proposed, because the coverage in RS is anything but broad.--Assayer (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I believe the last "Keep" vote to be a misinterpretation of SOLDIER #5, which requires a command of
  • "a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents)."
The subject commanded a sub-unit of the Sturzkampfgeschwader 77, being a Gruppenkommandeur. The commander of a wing would be a Kommodor. The subject under discussion topped out as a Major / sub-unit commander in the Luftwaffe; it's a far cry of what SOLDIER requires. In any case, SOLDIER is just an essay and SIGCOV has not been presented by any of the keep voters. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, in 1944 Henze became Kommodore of Schlachtgeschwader 102 and in January 1945 of Schlachtgeschwader 103, both of which were training units and did not see combat. Shortly before the end of the war, in April 1945, he became Kommodore of Schlachtgeschwader 151. And in the Bundeswehr he commanded Jagdbombergeschwader 35. But to come up with that information I had to search certain Internet sites, which I do not consider utterly reliable. Even Kurowski (cited above) deals with these commands only summarily. That's the problem with "significant coverage".--Assayer (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Training wings that did not see combat do not count towards SOLDIER#5. Likewise, commanding a unit during the last month of the war does not count either, IMO, as sorties were limited due to lack of fuel. Essentially, Luftwaffe by that time seized to be an effective fighting force. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't have any experience with WP:SOLDIER, so it's hard for me to judge the merits here. If I were to close this now, I would close it as No Consensus, but I'm going to take the (admittedly unusual) action of relisting this a third time, in the hopes that we can find some clear consensus, not just on this particular article, but on the broader question of what WP:SOLDIER requires. There is a lively debate here, which is touching on valid points, so I'm cautiously optimistic that continuing the discussion might bring us resolution one way or the other
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Vidal

Sandra Vidal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources are either (a) publicity material or (b) IMDb.The article says that she starred in The Bold and Beautiful, Undisputed, Derailed, White Rush and Rica, Famosa, Latina. However, IMDb lists her as a star only in White Rush; and her appearances in the reality show Rica, Famosa, Latina have been as one member of an ensemble cast of 8-10 people. Nominated for two awards, but no wins.

A search turned up one additional source - a report in the Daily Mirror (a British tabloid newspaper) that a staged fight in Rica, Famosa, Latina got out of hand and ended in bloodshed.

Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Brightwings

AfDs for this article:
The Brightwings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was nominated for deletion in 2008, but was kept on the grounds of meeting WP:NBAND. At the time, the criteria for NBAND were somewhat looser/more prone to being misinterpreted. Participants argued that since some of the band's music had appeared in some TV shows, the band passed NBAND criteria 10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc."

It seems clear to me however that simply having one's music be in the background in a TV show doesn't meet the criteria. What qualifies is having one's music be the theme song, or performing in a TV show, as in, the band is onscreen performing. As well, NBAND has been clarified to advise that if C10 is the only claim to notability, WP:BLP1E applies and a redirect to the main article is more appropriate.

Anyway, with the previous keep rationale out of the way, this band fails NBAND and GNG. No reliable sources located to indicate they are notable in and of themselves. All the sources in the article are citations showing they played with other people.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abashokobezi 1906–2006

Abashokobezi 1906–2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage per WP:NALBUM. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is it? That lists many articles. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second one: Sydafrikanskt: “I skuggan av Mali och andra trender fortsätter Sydafrika att vara ett av Afrikas största musikländer. Alla album nedan kan köpas på den oerhört välsorterade sajten www.oneworld.co.za. På www.amazon.co.uk hittar man också många av skivorna. — — 2. Bambata: Abashokobezi (1906-2006)(Gallo): “Ett oerhört pretentiöst album att döma av titeln och vad som går att läsa om det. Om man som jag saknar kunskaper i de flesta afrikanska språk återstår det pop och jazzig zuluhiphop med en del traditionella instrument. Förvånande bra även utan berättelse.”
Translation: “South African: In the shadow of Mali and other trends, South Africa continues to be one of Africa’s biggest countries for music. All albums below can be purchased on the extremely well-stocked site www.oneworld.co.za. At www.amazon.co.uk you will also find many of the discs. — — 2. Bambata: Abashokobezi (1906–2006) (Gallo): An incredibly pretentious album to judge by the title and what can be read about it. If, like me, you lack knowledge of most African languages, this is still pop and jazzy zuluhiphop with some traditional instruments. Surprisingly good even without story.” — Apanuugpak (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block City Wars

Block City Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game per WP:NVIDEOGAMES and WP:GNG, no significant coverage online in WP: Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Stroke 9. Per nom and WP:ATD-M. SoWhy 08:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Funke

Jens Funke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge with Stroke 9 -- non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 18:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bully (2011 film). MBisanz talk 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Ty Smalley

Suicide of Ty Smalley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks citations and I'm not sure about this one in terms of notability. I'd listed it as proposed deletion, but I'm moving it for discussion because the article creator is still actively editing. —Guanaco 17:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abayomi Rotimi Mighty

Abayomi Rotimi Mighty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article that does not establish notability per WP:GNG (some coverage of a speech he gave as 16-year-old in 2001, which the article claims has similar impact as Martin Luther King's "I have a dream", and one later blog post). HaeB (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. As a youth he made some speeches and founded several organizations of unclear notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will restore to user space or draft space upon request, if someone commits to continue to working on it to address the issues raised during this discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Fagan (educator)

David Fagan (educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have serious concerns about this page. First of all, it appears Mr. Fagan does exist, and at least some of the information in the article is verifiable from published sources. However, the bulk of this article is cited to this webpage which claims Mr. Fagan "agreed that the students could mount a Wikipedia entry about him," which entry was reproduced on that page. The bulk of the text of this article and that one are identical. This one was created first, and it seems they copied us, meaning this isn't a copyvio but is a particularly egregious example of circular referencing. That page also says that, "Informed consent, an audio recording, and extended paper documentation for the interview are available at the Woodson Research Center, Fondren Library, Rice University." and it provides a link to [4], which gives a result of page not found. A search on that website for "David Fagan" yields no results So it seems this article is largely based on original research consisting of an interview with the subject by his students who then wrote the Wikipedia page, which was copied to the Houston ARCH website, and then the Wikipedia page proceeded to cite its mirror as a source. Next, most of the rest of the sources cited in the article are dead links. At least one sentence in the article (concerning the school he taught at) appears to be inaccurate. I'm able to find several mentions of him in various magazines and websites focusing on athletics in the gay community, but they are passing mentions, not enough to build an article around. He seems to be at least marginally notable, and I hesitated to nominate this for deletion, but I really don't think this article is salvageable. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted the page while working Category Stale Drafts [5]. It is impossible to make headway there if you try to fix every page you find. I appreciate editors like ONUnicorn who consistently dig into topics like this and improve articles. As ONUnicorn also found, the subject appears marginally notable but I agree the page has issues, and if the issues can't be resolved, I trust ONUnicorn's judgement here. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
if demoted to userspace it will then be eventially CSD'd as a NOTAWEBHOST violation, G4 as recreation of material deleted in a deletion discussion, or sent to MfD as promotional for covering a non-notable topic or maybe just blanked. Article made it to AfD and needs to be fully dealt with in AfD, not shoved off so more editors can waste more time on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. The sole Keep !vote cited no policy or guideline but in the absence of any other participation after two relists, it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravipudi Venkatadri

Ravipudi Venkatadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent evidence of notability either in the article or based on a Google search. Only hits are on his own books, which only means that he wants to be notable, not that he is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPL Cup

SPL Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Without any references and any links, a reader has no idea what this is about. It appears to be about cricket, but it doesn't indicate what teams or players, let alone whether they are notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Just searching for varying results for 'SPL' doesn't source this in the least. I have no idea what cricket tourney the article is going on about. Your sources don't give me any context. Most hits for the SPL deal with the Scottish Premiership. Thus, unless the article creator can tell us what this list of statistics and abbreviations actually are, I'm asking for a delete. Nate • (chatter) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only am I confused but as a reader, I have no idea what this is as my first thought would be the Scottish Premiership in football. With that thought and barely any realiable sources I saying a Delete Matt294069 is coming 03:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with WP:NPASR. Between a very weak deletion nomination, some very weak keep !votes and some !votes advocating draftifying I don't see any clear consensus how to handle this at this point. SoWhy 12:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Point Anime Convention

AfDs for this article:
Castle Point Anime Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reliable sources for this article are problematic. NJ.com has published several pieces (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that have yet to be added to the article, and they seem to be the best source available. "The Stute", the newspaper of the college where the convention occurs, has published several articles (1, 2), but I am unsure this would meet the independent sources requirement. AXS also has coverage (1, 2, 3, 4) but it's questionable where they fall within reliable sources as they are part of the entertainment organization AEG. I could not locate TV or any reliable industry coverage. Esw01407 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not want to vote either way on this because I was once affiliated with this organization, and might have a potential WP:COI. I'm willing to admit the independent coverage on the article is quite scarce. Not enough such that it should be prod-deleted, hence why I contested the deletion, but it is not exactly clearly notable. However, I think there is some coverage. The event is a lot more well-known since its original AfD, and now has some consistent year-to-year coverage. If I had to declare my "vote" officially, I'd say a very weak keep. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zunera

Zunera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. she was the winner of non-notable "Mrs. Pakistan International USA". most of the cited sources are unreliable. Saqib (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the pageant may not have its own page, but it looks like it passes GNG or comes close [6]. That aside, there is also sufficient coverage of Zunera alone: [7], [8], [9], [10]. I know articles focused on fashion and beauty pageants are often looked down on (subtle sexism, in my opinion), but if the publications are sound, the articles are still considered significant and reliable GNG-friendly sources. Yvarta (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some quick Googling shows there is no such thing as the "Mrs. Pakistan International USA pageant", and that's a problem. --Lockley (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [11] suggests that she did enter such a pageant; but it's clearly not sufficient for notability. I have absolutely no idea what the case for the mononym would be. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the original editor's request, I have been helping them to make improvements to the article, but not being knowledgeable about Mrs Mazher, my additions are extremely limited. I think there is notability there, but whether or not it is sufficient to make the notability requirements is too close for me to call. The earlier (less neutrally worded article) that was nominated for speedy deletion showed more notability, but unfortunately did not include references for those potentially more notable bits. If references for those parts that were removed could be found, added to the current article along with better phrasing, then maybe the article will definitely demonstrate notability. What I would suggest is that if the article is deleted, it be userfied for Thecapital15's benefit. If it is kept, I would recommend a page rename to Zunera Mazher. Stephen! Coming... 10:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A quick Google Search yields quite significant results. Definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. The article itself is adequately referenced and I can see popular medica coverage in her home country and the US. Featured in top media outlets like CNN and the Express Tribune. The nominator should have a look over the references and their quality before nomination for deletion. Bellayelps (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Bellayelps (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am responding to every single user who left their response. Please don't consider this disruption, all the concerns you have raised are addressed one by one below.WP:GF
Hi @MBisanz:,
Thanks for your input! I didn't know the procedure, I was under the impression that a person like you will be the final authority & will be the ultimate decider but to my surprise, even you didn't take a decision after seeing that there is no apparent consensus :)
I don't know how we're going to reach a consensus, I guess we can begin by addressing the concerns raised by some other honorable members. I have responded to some members on their respective talk sections & tried to advocate my case to why the discrepancy was there in the first place. The core reason was only my ignorance for which I constantly sought their guidance but very few were kind enough to lend their wisdom. I rendered some member's help in rectifying some shortcomings, but I guess they are busy, I had to spend hours googling & incorporated those changes myself & some other members were very kind enough to help with the edits.
As for @Saqib:'s objection, "most of the cited sources are unreliable" - Currently the article has citations from CNN ABC Express Tribune & Pakistan Today - these are mainstream media publication of two different countries(U.S & Pakistan). Some of these were missing in the beginning but now they are incorporated. So Saqib bhai kindly review the page WP:EDITCONSENSUS & let us know what you think.In its current state it clearly passes WP:RELIABLE
@Lockley: said there is no such thing as "Mrs. Pakistan International USA pageant" - the name of the title was entered incorrectly in the first draft which is rectified after indicationWP:EDITCONSENSUS. Now it is changed to "Mrs. Pakistan International" - Mrs. International a pageant which is around for more than 30 years [1].
According to @Power~enwiki: - a mononym 'Zunera' was used as the page name, again due to my ignorance I didn't use the correct format. An issue which is currently fixed and now the page loads as Zunera_Mazhar WP:EDITCONSENSUS
Sir @Stephen: in the above comment your only concern was addressed WP:EDITCONSENSUS, I was going to do this right away but I didn't know how. I am thankful to @Bellayelps: who incorporated some important changes.
I am requesting all the honorable members of this discussion who raised their concerns, to please review the changes made in light of their objections WP:EDITCONSENSUS and please help expedite this matter. There are references of at least 5 published sources WP:NEWSORG which quashes all the WP:GNG objections as there are multiple reliable sources WP:RELIABLE quoted & in presence of these sources notability exist WP:NEXIST.Clearly there is no dearth of notability & at the time of publishing this page I wasn't aware of the importance of citing reliable sources. The nominator being a senior editor should've fixed this mistake by a rookie & instead of nominating this page for deletion WP:NEWBIES should've cited reliable sources which are easily accessible on the first page of google [2] but now that we have rectified most of the issues, I hope we will reach to some meaningful conclusion soon. Thecapital15 (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that this article was the subject of a recent job ad on Upwork hiring multiple editors to vote in this AfD. - Bilby (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby:, could you link this Upwork ad or let us know the posting time? If there is a sockpuppet infestation, I don't want to be mistakenly associated. Yvarta (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the first job ad related to this AfD was placed well after you had !voted here. There is absolutely no reason to assume that there is any relationship between the two. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: Yes please post links as to where you saw this & how is it associated to this page? I hope the discussion won't be derailed with dubious job posts, as the initial objections questioned the merits of notability which have been addressed over time.Thecapital15 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to have been three ads placed for this article. The first was placed around May 24 and was not related to this AfD - it was only to assist with formatting and editing, and no one was hired. The second was titled "Add Image to Wikipedia Article & Vote Keep in Deletion Discussion" and was placed on June 2. Two editors were hired and have since been paid, the jobs marked as completed, and they have been given positive feedback. The wording related to the AfD was "The page is also nominated for deletion because of notability, there is currently one keep vote because it is about a notable personality but some schmuck thought it isn't. I will need you to be able to vote Keep. Once you see the page you will know it does deserve to stay there." The third job ad was posted yesterday, and is titled "Wikipedia Vote Keep or Comment in Deletion Discussion" with the wording "The initial draft wasn't that impressive I guess, hence it got flagged. Over the week I have made significant changes but the stick in the mud kind of people at Wikipedia won't back off now. So I need a couple of Wikipedian's with 1000+ edits on their accounts to vote keep & throw some major shade". No one has been hired for the third job ad. - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My response is for any new users who want to take part in the discussion and the administrator. I can clearly see where this discussion will steer if I partake in the slander. A simple Upwork search [3] alone will show over 25+ jobs posted in the last 3 hours with over 8 jobs having AfD related requests. Are those job posts also related to this page? Casting unascertainable aspersions & slander is disruptive behavior & clearly in violation of good faith guideline. Apparently, sockpuppet is the Nuclear word in this community as it has clearly spooked Yvarta. This new development has completely jeopardized the possibility of any new user leaving any comment that advocates the case of this page's notability & reliability of its sources. I hope the administrator will take a decision after weighing the merits of notability & reliability. Because that's why this page was nominated in the first place. In my comment above with reliable sources & citing guidelines, I have explained in great detail how this page has reliability & notability.Thecapital15 (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that there are a number of current jobs on Upwork related to Wikipedia editing. However, as far as I am aware only those three relate to this AfD. The others presumably are for different articles. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the reliability & notability of this page is ascertained in great detail in my comment above with reliable sources & guidelines citations. Any other unascertainable aspersions are nothing but slander. Please don't consider my civility & respect a sign of weakness. I am just waiting for an objective administrator to take note of this very unbecoming & disruptive behavior.Thecapital15 (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, and paid editing is certainly a problem. But yes, the closing admin will, I'm sure, be able to take this into account. I don't think we need to worry about acting on it at this time. - Bilby (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rather Burn it Down. I'm not a paid editor and I did not come here from a job board. The subject does not pass WP:NMODEL which is the relevent criteria. Only the subject would hire people to vote on an AfD to protect her vanity article, so how about we WP:SALT so it can't be recreated by this person and her paid minions. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agree totally. I now think salting is appropriate. Just to repeat the point above -- the dates and details of that second Upwork task match up to the !votes here and improvements made by WikiTimPedia and Bellayelps. (And hey I match the description of "some schmuck".) Whatever else is going on, this is pushy-pushy promotional activity with editors encouraged to "throw some major shade" to get this done. --Lockley (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are plenty of WP:RELIABLE WP:PRIMARY & WP:SECONDARY sources quoted on the page & most are mainstream WP:NEWSORG of not one but two different countries(U.S & Pakistan). According to this guideline -> WP:NEXIST the notability clearly exists as there are numerous WP:RELIABLE sources quoted. I am sure the administrators will take note of the crass language used in guise of unsubstantiated, unascertainable, mala fide & ridiculous claims. I will again exercise restraint & not invoke WP:HARASS but when my Talk page is littered with phony claims of Sock Puppetry which is a clear naked blatant violation of WP:HUSH I can't assume WP:GOODFAITH. I am glad that an investigation is requested to substantiate the sock puppetry claims & I can't wait for the results. Hope the discussion will be kept limited to merits of notability & reliability, now that the investigation re puppetry is ongoing.Thecapital15 (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I requested an SPI [12] based on the strange goings on here. Thecapital15 is claiming I'm harrassing them for informing them of the SPI and demanding I delete the SPI notice within three minutes.[13] Of course they are free to delete such notices themselves from their own talkpage. I'm not impressed with all the policy linking and claims of harrassment here and on their talk. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew I could remove your comments or notifications, I would remove them right away according to these guidelines WP:HUSH By the way I asked you very politely, as I was under the impression that I am not allowed to remove other peoples' comments & I had to give you 3 mins ultimatum because I asked 3 times before that citing these guidelines WP:HUSH which you refused to acknowledge. Just wanted to set the record straight as guidelines citations were not mentioned & I haven't yet cited WP:HARASS & i'm sure I won't because we're all professional people here. AND thank you very much for starting the investigation you did me a solid, as I had no way to refute the claims made re sockpuppets, it was my word against others & clearly I am at a disadvantage.Thecapital15 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I would however suggest a reasonable interlude before sending this back to AFD in the hopes of article improvement. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Boldt

Laurence Boldt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR; total lack of independent WP:RS.

Ineligible for PROD, PROD'd in 2008 for notability concerns & de-PROD'd because "Zen and the Art of Making a Living has a respectable Amazon uk ranking". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total lack of reliable sources. Although his books feature on a few courses, that doesn't guarantee notability. Some of the courses are not mainstream academic subjects, e.g. he's included alongside texts on acupuncture and WP:FRINGE medicine here[14] and in other courses he's just one name on a long reading list or given as supplementary reading. He's not part of any widely used syllabus, or either subject or author of a commonly-used textbook, and he's not the subject of significant published criticism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Colapeninsula, I understand what you're saying. Yet, I feel there are some examples that are compelling. Wakeforest University mentions in their Non-profit Immersion Program that they teach the program...: "...through discussions and reading various articles and books, including ‘How to Find The Work You Love’ by Laurence Boldt and excerpts from the anthology ‘Leading Lives that Matter.’...",[15] it provides support for the enduring significance of this author's works. UCLA's course on Leadership And Spirituality teaches “Service: The Call of Compassion” by Laurence G. Boldt as a course assignment.[16] Similarly, one of the tuition courses at Aquinas College has this statement: "Laurence Boldt authored The Tao of Abundance, and in this class through small group and experiential learning, we will explore samples of his text and engage in dialog and exercises to examine how we spend our time, circulate our gifts and talents, and how we cultivate chi or energy and joy in our lives".[17] All this, in my opinion, provides support for the enduring significance of the subject's works. With respect to whether the author's works are notable, I feel WP:NBOOK helps here, which mentions that any book that "has been the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" is notable. Would be nice if you could comment on this interpretation. Thanks. Lourdes 01:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Kulling

Monica Kulling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that she won a literary award ("North Dakota Library Association") which is not notable enough to constitute a WP:AUTHOR pass in and of itself. There are no reliable sources being cited here to get her over WP:GNG, either, as the article is referenced entirely to GoodReads and her primary source profiles on the websites of her own publishers, with no evidence of media coverage about her being shown at all. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- an actual notability claim, and the reliable sourcing to support it, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As per WP:AUTHOR, a subject may be notable if "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [...] covered by multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". In my opinion, Kulling has created many well known books, as can be evidenced by the number of third party sources giving references to her work. For example, her book was listed by The Boston Globe amongst The Best Picture Books of 2014.[18] Similarly, her work was amongst the finalists for the Governor General’s Literary Awards,[19][20] apart from being amongst the finalists for the Silver Birch Awards.[21] I'm not saying that these are or aren't notable things; I'm bringing these to the fore to support the fact that her work is very well known, as required per AUTHOR. Additionally, her work has been the subject of multiple reliable reviews, for example - [22][23][24][25][26] This seems to qualify the subject on WP:AUTHOR in my opinion. I can include these sources within the article, in case the subject is kept. Thanks. Lourdes 15:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ji-hoo

Kim Ji-hoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He's not a noticeable person. Also he has not a notable career as an actor and model. Beside, He did not commit suicide because he was gay. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple sources referenced Ji-Hoo, and not being "the best" at one's profession doesn't automatically make you non-notable. If it were only a handful of sources from the same period then sure delete it, but this person is notable, and the reason for their suicide being incorrectly referenced in the article doesn't make the entire article automatically invalid. Donald Trung (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think one event applies here? MrBrug (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps part of an (incredibly depressing) list of celebrity suicides in South Korean and/or list of LGBT suicides in South Korea. MrBrug (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're getting at, and with this link to Bing News I also seem to get various other people with the same name, but if you search the Korean language news sites there's more about his early life prior to his suicide, and I've seen plenty of articles with almost no Anglophone sources to cite. Donald Trung (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah maybe we have a WP:BIAS problem here and one event doesn't apply. Hopefully some Korean sources will be added, do you know any good ones? MrBrug (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After searching for his career in both English and Korean, I am not finding anything other than television appearances mentioned at the time of his death in 2008. Two of the three current page citations (which also need fixing as they are dead links) are from Fridae, a questionable social media site. The 3rd citation, the Korea Times article [27] lists an "apparent suicide" and a vague suicide note not confirming the reason. Whatever the cause of the suicide, which got some attention referencing his being gay, or attached with a list of other celebrity suicides......I agree that his notability is only related to the one event. Media coverage was not significant and his notability was temporary.
As to any bias....I can add that the nominating editor Kanghuitari is South Korean and has contributed many South Korean articles and those related to gay subjects in South Korea, albeit without strong English skills. I trust that if there were more articles verifying Kim Ji-hoo, he would not have nominated it for deletion.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He was notable to get an entry in Harris M. Lentz III (17 April 2009). Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2008: Film, Television, Radio, Theatre, Dance, Music, Cartoons and Pop Culture. McFarland. pp. 235–. ISBN 978-0-7864-5384-9.. I'd hesitate to delete it before getting an input from a Korean speaker for sources possibly available at [28], for example; mention in "association between Media Reporting and a Lower Suicide Rate in 2012" for example suggests there may be some scholarly analysis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobadilla railway station

Bobadilla railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rail station in small town. As per WP:STATION, does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historically important in understanding how the contruction of the line was used and is still used and connected to the surrounding areas, maybe read more on it before deleting Onel5969, without discussing first seems illogical, I have added a citation as there was indeed none, which is why you deleted the article (according to the talk section of the article). This station forms part of the Algeciras-Bobadilla railway line and is historically connected to the Algeciras Gibraltar Railway Company --Rockysantos (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per wp:station "It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article. " It seems like it's up to editorial judgement... I'll !vote for a separate article if it grows beyond a stub, otherwise a merge is fine by me MrBrug (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is capable of being expanded from sources in the Spanish Wikipedia article. Needing improvement is never a reason for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a real mainline station. As noted above, Spanish WP has a host of coverage, generally from government sources. As with most stations this is expected. WP wisely decided long ago rail stations are worthy of articles and this prevents the exhausting fleshing out of the notability of the tens of thousands of such articles when editors time can and should be better spent improving existing articles and created new ones of worthy topics. --Oakshade (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not exactly unanimous but IMO the weight of consensus and argument favors Keep. If this were the first review I'd relist it. But after three relists it's time to for a judgement call and that's mine. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Del Percio

Susan Del Percio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a political consultant, which is (a) written more like the sell-yourself pitch at the top of a LinkedIn profile than anything resembling an actual encyclopedia article, and (b) parked on a single primary source rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about her. As always, political campaign strategists do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing; they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment a mistaken tweet by a politician referenced her. [29]. She also sometimes writes articles for newspapers. [30]
A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not by being the author of media content or by getting tweeted about. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a fair number of hits in reliable sources which glancingly namecheck her existence in coverage of other subjects; there do not seem to be any significant number of hits in reliable sources which have her as their subject. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since she is a long time political consultant, there are many passing mentions of her, and brief quotes of her doing her job, and tweets. Today, for example, she is irritated at a hotel with broken air conditioning. But I have been unable to find any significant coverage of her that demonstrates that she is notable. As always, I will change my mind if someone brings forward solid sources and adds a few good references to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your request is reasonable, so I ran a search with "Cuomo" as a keyword to see if there were "solid sources and added a few good references", found some, and added them to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 07:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Manderson

Denver Manderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yosemiter, sure. That sounds a fair analysis.I've updated my comments below. Lourdes 01:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408talk 02:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 07:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Maggio

Daniel Maggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408talk 02:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble Vocal Katimavik

Ensemble Vocal Katimavik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been unable to find references to independent sources about this choir. There's an article in the French encyclopedia, but it is equally unreferenced. Perhaps another editor who is more familiar with Quebec French sources will find something written about the group. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It existed and performed but as noted above there is nothing to be found in terms of significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps there are news archive hits I can't find but it fails GNG and WP:BAND for all that I can see. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Mathew (Entrepreneur)

Neil Mathew (Entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a highly promotional article about an individual that does not meet notability requirements. Of the six references, 2 (yfsmagazine and evusa) are non-independent and 3 (dailymail, theverge, manoroflondon) include only passing mentions of Mathew. The remaining reference appears to be a low quality gossip site. Peacock (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hi, sorry for coming here late, I have found some more credible sources from Buzzfeed and other magazines article. I'll fix all issues soon, please give me some time to learn. I'll fix everything. Please don't delete yet. Thank you very much and your help is appreciated. Nuck2u (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as all I fixed everything that was asked hello dear admins/editors, please have a look at the page now. I tried to fix everything that had issues. Categories updated, promotional terms removed, added new references from valuable resources, linked page internally to cover orphan tag. Hope so I met all the requirements. It is my kinda start here hope I did well, thank you for your suggestions and help, and I think he is enough notable as per his fan following and Fashion Icon status, well, please decide and guide further. Thankyou Nuck2u (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant spam or autobio. Sources are churnalism, routine directory listing, PR disguised as gossip, or written by Mathew about himself. None of this establishes notability. Grayfell (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Well, I don't know Mathew wrote them or who, I see them as independent resources, if Buzzfeed and all other well-known websites are not valid then please explain me the policies? I just saw those in a recent research so I thought to fix it. There are many articles out here with a single or no reference, anyway, none of my concerns. What do you call notability? I saw him as a fashion Icon and celebrity and well known within the elite class that's why I thought to create an article. I think your comment is Biased as you are judging and expressing ambiguity that all those articles are self-written while they clearly state that who wrote them. I am trying to learn more about Wikipedia because I am planning to contribute my readings and research about people. Please explain! like if someone praises Donald trump's qualities in the article it means Donald Trump wrote that article about himself? Nuck2u (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's Donald Trump now? Be realistic. See WP:BIO and WP:GNG for an understanding of what Wikipedia's guidelines are.
The Buzzfeed article is "community" content, meaning it has no substantial editorial oversight or fact-checking, nor is it useful for establishing notability, since it's essentially user generated content. It's also an interview, which is very poor for notability, since it's not independent of Mathew.
The YFS Magazine ("Young, Fabulous, and Self-Employed") article was written by Mathew, and is likewise not independent. It's also devoid of substance or real insight, which makes it hard to take seriously, but that's only tangentially relevant. Since he wrote it himself, it is not usable for establishing notability.
The rest of the sources are either listings or unreliable. The Essex Star may or may not be reliable, but even if it is, it's a just a gossip column. C&F is neither neutral, nor clearly reliable.
I don't know if Mathew was directly involved in writing this Wikipedia article, but it's promotionally written and thinly sourced, so it's indistinguishable from spam. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So your decisions are based on assumptions and self-thoughts. All things you shared proves that he desrves the page. See the section of WP:ENT what point 2 and 3 says fits his profile. He developed/innovated a well-known APP for Elite class and also Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. And obviously, if someone is writing about a personality he/she will focus on his/her qualities and positive traits. There are hundreds of stubs and pages that do not have a single reference, if they could stay why not this one? Or if you don't know anything about those pages maybe I can launch AFD on all of them so you can also explain them to me because I want to know why. and also see that he is a brand ambassador of a famous brand in the UK and well-known in the world, that also full fills another requirement Nuck2u (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He "innovated a well-known app", did he? Using peacock words in this discussion severely undermines your point. If you know of any other articles which are as blatantly promotional as this one, sources or not, please nominate them for deletion as appropriate. Wikipedia has a spam problem, but adding more of it isn't helping. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to keep I think this person is emerging as a next billionaire, sooner or later being discussed in more high authority sites. I guess someone will create it again, so why not you guys could keep it. Just a thought Prof.Marlin (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't keep article on people who may become notable in the future: see WP:CRYSTAL. Please also keep in mind that AFD is not a vote: see WP:DISCUSSAFD. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrine Maui

Sabrine Maui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsung siren clearly not significant, fails gng and pornbio Spartaz Humbug! 11:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica May

AfDs for this article:
Jessica May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The award is all there is to say - clearly this cannot be enough on its own. Fails gng and pornbio Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Claire

Claudia Claire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Best spanish porn actress is clearly not enough when that is literally all there is to say. Fails pornbio anf gng Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Guay

Joseph Guay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly non-notable artist (I'm not certain). The article is written like an advert, with a bunch of improperly-formatted URLs which don't appear to me to satisfy WP:GNG. A Gnews search threw up only two articles which might satisfy GNG: Curbed[34] and Billbord[35], but I am not sure that Curbed is an RS.
Note that the text was pasted in one blob[36] with the edit summary Uploaded the entire BIO for "Joseph Guay" which implies a possible COI or copyvio (though I haven't found a source for any copyvio).
If kept, this needs big cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Curbed source seems okay. I've read this exhaustive New York Times report on the source; NYT mentions: "To create that balance of power, the information needs to be reliable, and Curbed has made strides in ensuring the accuracy of its reporting." That, combined with the Billboard source and exhaustive reviews on the subject's work like this make me tend towards Keep. The subject, in my opinion, seems to qualify on GNG and perhaps more so on WP:NARTIST, having originated innovatively new concepts, which have been covered by multiple reliable sources. Of course, you are right. The article needs to be cleaned up significantly if kept. But this is not a TNT case. Thanks. Lourdes 10:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional blah-blah-blah with no sign of a single tangible accomplishment. Reliable sources are very thin at best. This is the only article edited by its major contributor. --Lockley (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and reduce to a stub. In its current state it's almost entirely promotional garbage with an unquestionable COI; how does the editor know that his sister is a well-established esthetician if not through some personal connection? The peacockery is insufferable and many of the references are noting but announcements. However, the subject does meet some of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE; his work has been the subject of some critical attention and his work is in notable collections. Hack away, please. Mduvekot (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a well established artist in the Atlanta community and his photography is known in international publications credibility as an artist and photographer: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Underwood (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep He just about meets WP:GNG through the Billboard article and various Atlanta-area publications (primarily writing about his wall project). A lot of the cited references in the article are weak and a couple look like press releases. Taking photos of Elton John isn't itself a sign of notability, although John is well-known as an important collector of photography. The article and some of the keep comments over-sell him (posting a bunch of links to Google searches does not establish notability). But we should try and evaluate it dispassionately and while it's arguable I think he's just about above the bar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ritu (2009 film). MBisanz talk 01:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Menon

Jaya Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor. Most probably a vanity page created by a now blocked user who was probably a paid editor for Malayali expats in Bahrain (per the plethora of warnings on his talk page). Has supposedly performed some minor role in Ritu, though the IMDB page lists a Jay Menon. Has also supposedly won some non notable awards. The Kalabhavan Mani awards she claims to have won is probably a non notable award. (An organisation recently initiated a small scale Kalabhavan Mani memorial award, though she has not won that as well). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, if it ever was applicable. Jupitus Smart 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Laffin

Paul Laffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be most noted for his rugby playing. However, all the teams he's played for seem quite minor. There's a mention of him playing for Ireland under-21s but the ref. is dead and I cannot find other confirmation. There's a mention of semi-professional play for a French club, but the name isn't given and the ref. brings up a 404. I have not found noteworthy mentions of him in Google searches. A bit iffy (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the Internet Archive does have a copy of the ourfc page used as a reference, it only lists him as being an Ireland U21 player in the player list and does not expand on that. I have not found anything else to back up that already meagre claim to notability on Rugby grounds. Statbunker shows someone of that name playing 5 matches for Henley Hawks on 2005 and the ourfc website ref shows at least 2 appearances for Oxford university. On their own neither of those is sufficient to show rugby union notability. Seems to be a minor bureaucrat working in Brussels with nothing showing wider notability and references are all minor from college sources. noq (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5 deletion as sockpuppet. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Sanga

Gul Sanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. cited sources are not reliable. Saqib (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Quick google search shows no reliable, third party sources in the first couple of pages - we can take that to mean that there are none, or very few. Keira1996 08:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  08:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  08:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Name checking only. --Saqib (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ASR Stadium road

ASR Stadium road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Just another intra-city road in a city. This article was PROD'ed a few days ago, the tag was removed after adding source. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 10:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication as to why the road itself is an encyclopedia-worthy topic, and the sources only mention the road in passing. Notability is not inherited from the locations found on it. --Kinu t/c 02:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don Burke (ice hockey)

Don Burke (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz4477 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet criteria Leah (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 06:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nayan Raina

Nayan Raina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable personality. Fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Coderzombie (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Hello, sir can you please let me know how the article meets/violates policy???? he is a notable personality. he also discovered by American Radio Personality Bryant Corbitt who is the Program Director at KMX Radio 106.7 and KISS Fm 104.7 and i updated Categories, added new references from valuable resources, linked page internally to cover orphan tag.. XxModeGamerxX (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Before creating the page, you should have read the notability guidelines, particularly, WP:MUSICBIO. "Discovered by program director" is not enough to be notable. Coderzombie (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks IP address, but that's not how it works in Wikipedia. Coderzombie (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creditinform

Creditinform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a non-notable company. It has no references at all. FeralOink (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Kinu t/c 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyogthaeblisz

Nyogthaeblisz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sourced. Alexf505 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the extremely unique nature of their name, it's easily possible to find trivial references to them. There's no claim that this band is notable in any of them, and no references on the article. It should be deleted as it stands. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the style of music they play, I'm not even entirely convinced that anti-anything-much sentiments are in themselves a claim of notability (with a few notable exceptions, most of black metal is anti-Christianity, and there's an entire subculture which is anti-Judaism). As Power~enwiki points out, there's a lack of anything beyond trivial coverage, and with a name like this there's no chance of missing it on a search. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kutar

Kutar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like advert, nothing that justifies notability. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of NGC objects (6001–7000). MBisanz talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 6666

NGC 6666 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The object doesn't exist, in a constellation that doesn't exist, and there isn't any mention of the object having been thought to exist (the reference is a dynamic link). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fwiw I saw this new creation and was about to start a thread at WT:ASTRO to see if they thought it was necessary to have pages for these non-existent objects (there are a bunch of pages it seems, 111, 122, 123, 7028, etc). Depending on the outcome of this AfD, we could still do that and PROD the lot. "Pepper" @ 03:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no specific notability guideline for non-existent objects – they are not notable unless they pass WP:GNG. Despite being listed in the NGC, WP:NASTRO is not applicable because NGC 6666 does not physically exist, and therefore cannot be described within the meaning of "significant physical entities, associations or structures that current science has confirmed to exist in outer space." Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete something that doesn't exist and has no references that suggest notability. Unfortunately I can't find a case for speedy deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can: {{db-g1}} or {{db-nonsense}}, but the creator of the article would dispute. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existence is different from nonsense. It's not a hoax either since it makes no claims to existence. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying the article is nonsense, not that NGC 6666 is nonsense. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page definitely does not qualify for a nonsense delete. If you think it is nonsense, it may not be as clear as it should be. I.E. the thing was discovered and listed. But then later found that it did not exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this was a false sighting, in which case it was thought to exist, then, first, should the list note that it was a false sighting, and, second, was it thought to be in Lyra (an actual constellation), and is there a typo in the name of the constellation? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well let me correct myself. In regard to the New General Catalog, "non-existent" does not mean "does not exist." A research paper written in 1993, which is abstracted here and discussed here, counts 229 entries classified as "non-existent". That's roughly 3% of the total 7840 NGC entries. The paper found that five were duplicates, 99 existed "in some form", 124 needed further research, and only one -- NGC 1498 -- for sure did not exist. So "non-existent" here is a historical categorization which doesn't correspond AT ALL with actual discoveries. As to how to reflect all this, I'd stand by a Merge and Redirect on the grounds that NGC 6666 is not individually notable, and in any case it would be useful to have an explanation of "NGC non-existence" on the NGC article. I'll do that part. --Lockley (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BROS International Co., Limited

BROS International Co., Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sourced. Alexf505 (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox Game Pass games

List of Xbox Game Pass games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As this is a service like Netflix or Hulu, games will come and go. As such, this is basically serving as a catalog for the service, which we are not. MASEM (t) 03:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this doesn't call under WP:NOTCATALOGUE as it's similar to other "list of " articles for Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, and catalogues tend to delete historic entries and products, Wikipedia does, and should not, as long as it could be well sources it would meet notability. Therefore I argue that it should not be deleted on the above argument. --Donald Trung (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do keep track of games released for systems, and as noted on previous talk pages, you can't "unrelease" a game. But games on this service are not new releases, and they will come and go. If they offer unique titles you can't get anywhere, like Netflix's original series, then you now have something comparable to the existing MS, Sony, and Nintendo lists, which we would track. But not existing games. That's why this is a catalog since it tells you want they offer as a service, the other lists tracking what has been released over all time. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • But straight out deletion wouldn't be the best option, merge this into another Xbox game list article or Microsoft-related product page would be better. And it does cover multiple systems and there seem to be plenty reporting on it to make it notable. Donald Trung (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The service itself is notable; the games connected to it are not. As Masem stated, the exception would be if and only if Microsoft publishes Game Pass-exclusive content. --McDoobAU93 13:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Check Microsoft's website if you want up-to-date listing on their programs and deals. That's not an encyclopedias role. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it should be noted that if there was an external link that had this type of list (either MS directly or even a well-kept Wikia), then an EL at the bottom of the page for the Xbox Game Pass program would be very much in line. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information is going to become as persistent as monthly 'what's coming/going on Netflix' articles in the videogame press. We're WP:NOT here to host what is basically an unpaid Microsoft WP:ADVERT; if a game is on the service, just drop it in the game's article. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. --McDoobAU93 13:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Davidson

Will Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not follow WP:BIO because there are no sources other than this single manchester united listing of former players, which shows that he played for two years in the 1890s. There are no other sources on google etc. showing this person was significant in any way. -William (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the first articles for deletion I had created - in general, as I understand it at least, doesn't there have to be some amount of coverage not just incidentally of the person, but about the person themselves? All I can find for this guy is listings of their lineup when he happened to have played or at most very brief snippets - nothing that tells us about him other than that he existed. For example: here, here, here, here, and here. Overall there is nothing written about Will Davidson alone, but only about the team during that time in which he is sometimes mentioned. Sorry about the formatting - I don't know what went wrong. -William (talk)
There seems to be plenty of writing about him in 100-year old documents, some of which can be found in Google Books. Not much in the current papers ... - but it's for situations like this, that we have WP:BEFORE and subject-specific notability guidelines - specifically WP:NSPORTS where if you scroll down to WP:NFOOTBALL which notes that Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. . So 40+ matches with Manchester United (or whatever they called themselves back then) is so far past the bright line that as long as we can verify that they actually exist and did indeed do what was said, then there's no point pulling out 100-year old documents to prove notabilty. Nfitz (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NFOOTBALL. He retired due to a serious injury. There's probably some published information about that, but it might not be online. This might require physical research of archives from the 1894-1895, possibly including a visit to Manchester. There may even be a related obituary, because medical care wasn't great back then. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, might be able to tease a death date out of genealogical data and find an obituary. How many William Davidson's could be born in Scotland and living there in the 1891 census ...gosh about 20 per year it would seem. Well, maybe not ... need another clue. Oh well, doesn't matter, still notable - though an obituary sure would help the article itself. Nfitz (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Davidson was still alive in 1903 because he recruited Alex Bell for Manchester United. I wonder if he had some sort of formal relationship with the club at that time. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch. I've been fishing in the 1891 through 1911 censuses, without much luck. There is one I fancied in Rochdale in 1901/1911, particularly after I realised his house backed onto a football pitch; but if he was in Ayr in 1903, that now seems unlikely. Presumably he was back in Ayr by 1903. Though that clue might help - wish the 1901/1911 Scottish censuses were more accessible without $. (I figure that if we can identify him genealogically, we can establish a date of death, find his obituary, and flesh out his article). Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And with that tidbit, I've got a possible 1901 census entry in Scotland, age 32, married, and working as a coal-miner in Ayr. The one thing that jumped out at me though was he was born in Annbank - where Davidson previously played football. No trace in 1911 though. A couple of death possibilities, but no media coverage I could see. Searching the media more generally, the only thing that pops in a January 13 1903 mention of the Alec Bell signing in the Athetic News (Page 8), referring to Will Davidson as "the Heathens’ old captain, and fair player ever donned a jersey, regards Alec. Beil, whom the United have just engaged. ae about good pivot can found Scotland." - well that seems notable. A proper $ research account to go through the British Newspaper Archive further would be of use - especially to download that particular page, because clearly the OCR in the search results is a bit lacking!. That's a good 2-hours+ digging. Maybe someone can take that someday and find something - 50 years from now or something. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cruz

Bob Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find anything on Google or in the article that would suggest Bob Cruz is notable.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here is a strong enough claim of notability that he would get an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage about him — but of the three "references" here, two are on an unreliable fansite for the radio station he worked at and the third is the personal website of a former colleague, which means none of them constitute reliable sources for the purposes of establishing wikinotability. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody with better access than I've got to US media coverage of the 1970s and 1980s can locate stronger evidence that he would actually pass GNG for something, but nothing here entitles him to an exemption from having to be shown to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain. Fair enough, here are some notable facts from reliable sources. Cruz was the last DJ hired at what was the number-one top-40's radio station in North America.[4] He ultimately replaced Dan Ingram — "the greatest afternoon drive jock ever" — in the high revenue-generating timeslot of afternoon-drive.[5][6] Later, he became the on-air announcer for ABC's 20/20 program.[7][8] His resignation from WABC in 1981 marked the beginning of a string of departures at the station, triggered by a drop in ratings that precipitated the change to an all-talk format.[9] Cruz was a casualty of AIDS in 1995, by which time 500,000 cases had been reported in the U.S. [10][11] Upon his death, ABC's 20/20 did a special tribute to him. algocu (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.mrsinternational.com/mrs-international-pageant.php#A
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=zunera+mazhar
  3. ^ https://www.upwork.com/o/jobs/browse/?q=wikipedia
  4. ^ Billboard Magazine, 1977
  5. ^ RADIO SURVEY ARCHIVE
  6. ^ The spirit of 77: It's been 50 years since Dan Ingram helped make WABC an AM radio icon
  7. ^ WABC Strives For Past Glories
  8. ^ 20/20 15TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL(1993)
  9. ^ WABC IS DROPPING MUSIC FORMAT TO SWITCH TO TALK AND NEWS
  10. ^ IMDB
  11. ^ AIDS Timeline
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, most of the existing sources don't even mention "Bob Cruz". - TheMagnificentist 11:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Current sourcing does not impress, but he received fairly consistently ongoing, if minor, coverage in broadcasting industry periodicals. There's quite a bit about the WABC format changes, in both Billboard and Television/Radio Age. I don't have access to most of this from where I am currently (especially the Television/Radio Age material). That said, the Billboard "Vox Jox" column (dedicated to DJ news) mentioned him fairly often: his hiring, timeslot and format changes, an acknowledgement that he was the most successful then-current DJ for the station (in the 1980-09-06 issue), his departure from radio to focus on 20/20 (1981-03-07), and a detailed (and very different from the previous week) report on his departure from the station (1981-03-14). I would not be immensely surprised for contemporary print sources to have offered more coverage of his tenure at 20/20 and his 1980 work announcing the Summer Olympics for ABC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Dream-lives of Engineers (book)

The Secret Dream-lives of Engineers (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no notability per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Primarily per arguments by DGG and K.e.coffman. An interview is not a WP:RS, and WP:PORNBIO has not been met. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Dee

Sophie Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails pornbio and gng Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per sources on Google[54] (Granted not all are perfect however notability looks to be there), Anyway has has won significant and notable awards, Meets PORNBIO #1 and #2 and meets GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more time: a raw GNews dump is of little value without identifying the quality hits with significant coverage. In the first page of results, Wales Online appears to be the only significant RS and that one can be considered primary. As for the awards, Urban X and NightMoves Award wins almost never establish PORNBIO #1 notability at AfD. Also, FAME Awards winners have been deleted at recent AfD debates. Minor roles in mainstream shows don't meet the "featured in" test for PORNBIO #2. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here a summary of the 12 links you listed: 1. Addictivo365.com - pictorial; 2. Wales Online - already noted above; 3. NJ105.com - trivial mention; 4. Autoevolution.com - trivial mention; 5. Wales Online again - 4 sentences about a proposed TV documentary. Not distinct from link #2. 6. El Grafico - incidental mention; 7. Daily Star - not even mentioned, article is about Maria Osawa; 8. El Sol - A Saturday's Girl blurb; 9. Los Angeles Magazine - passing mention; 10. Houston Press - trivial mention; 11. Clizbeats.com - trivial mention; 12. AVN - listings in 2 republished press releases. Several passing mentions don't add up to significant coverage. I also suggest caution about using sources like The Daily Star. (Did you hear the one about the SAS sniper who took out the flamethrower-wielding ISIS executioner from a mile away?) Independent reliable source coverage appears to be pretty thin. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said not all are great however notability is there, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's close, but I think this scrapes by on GNG, whether or not the awards meet PORNBIO. I've taken two external links added by another editor after the AfD was filed (one from Los Angeles Magazine and one from Wales Online) and made them proper refs. They show that she's been covered in multiple, independent reliable sources beyond the porn press. David in DC (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the links above are not convincing, mostly being tabloid-like coverage. For example, Wales Online source is an interview, titled "Porn star Sophie Dee on golf, walking her dogs and coming back to Wales for fish and chips in the park with her dad". This is basically trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purpose of PORNBIO is to compensate for the typically extensive coverage, usually i questionable sources. I see it as a deliberate limitation on the GNG in this area; as we have the right to make what guidelines we please and qhat exceptions we please, we have the right to make this special case if there is consensus,,and there has been. There was extensive discussion about this case, and the Special guideline has clear consensus. We should not be overriding it for an very borderline article like this--indeed, the dubious nature ofthe sources as discussed above shows the need for the special guideline. I recognize we might choose to over-ride it in a case with esecially strong ,edia coverage--but this is just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. The long list of stacked links above is most unimpressive. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This passage deserves to be immortalized from the "Walk Her Dogs" article being touted as a source counting towards GNG: In her free time, she has discovered a passion for golf, though she doesn’t yet have a handicap. “I can shoot 200 yards. I almost got a hole-in-one once. It was super close but the ball bounced out of the hole. It kind of counts.” Carrite (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they're not perfect and I have scrapped the barrel no doubt about it however there are a few indepth coverage in reliable sources so thus she does meet GNG although only by a bare inch. –Davey2010Talk 15:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

La Trobe University Squash Club

La Trobe University Squash Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Non-professional or non major league sports club or team. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  13:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  13:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dae Jang Geum. MBisanz talk 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Min Mee-geum

Min Mee-geum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, minor character. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As usual, I'm happy to provide a copy of the article to anyone who wishes to work on it. SoWhy 06:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Gildersleeve

AfDs for this article:
Taylor Gildersleeve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough independent sources to show the notability. Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies

Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Birla Sun Life Asset Management Company Limited. MBisanz talk 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. Balasubramanian

A. Balasubramanian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance/notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. - TheMagnificentist 08:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete our article on the company he is CEO of is currently pretty much written as an advertisement, and this article says nothing substantial beyond the fact he is CEO of the company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:BIO, with no evidence of independent notability in secondary WP:RS. What I do see is a lot of paid mini-profiles on Bloomberg and Linkedin etc, with a few short puff interviews about his work with the company with a paid-promo feel, on the business news sites that pump out a ton of this stuff, amounting to WP:Primary sources. And sure enough, this article is created by WP:SPA "Indian CEO and executives bio". His company might turn out to be notable, but WP:Notability is not inherited. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CEO of large investment firm. Chairman of a major industry association (Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI)). Interviewed regularly, with some in-depth coverage from a quick BEFORE going over google-news. The current article is poor (but not PROMO) - but the guy is quite notable.Icewhiz (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Icewhiz --Bhadani (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 18:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 07:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hams and Hamstrings

Hams and Hamstrings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, Delete as failing WP:NEVENT. Coverage consists solely of WP:ROUTINE coverage of a planned event by local news agencies. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408talk 02:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 T. E. Lawrence. MBisanz talk 01:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dahoum

Dahoum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not exactly sure what this article is supposed to be about. OK, so he was a kid who worked with TE Lawrence some, but the article itself seems to be about (largely debunked) insinuations about his "relationship" with Lawrence which the latter's biographers do not find convincing (as noted in the rather messy section on his article about his sexuality).

This article is just thinly-veiled insinuation with some completely unremarkable biographical details thrown in. The vast majority of the sources I've been able to find online have erected him as some sort of LGBT icon, which doesn't seem to meet the bar for inclusion here for the reason I just noted.

I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about this. I don't personally think it even warrants a merge into Lawrence's article. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep - He was a real person, but it’s clear that he only is notable in his connection with T.E. Lawrence. While it has not been proved, it is fairly widely believed among Lawrence scholars that Dahoum is the “S.A.” to whom Seven Pillars of Wisdom is dedicated, and the subject of Lawrence’s remark “I loved a particular Arab, and thought freedom for their nation would be an acceptable gift.” For me, that crosses the notability bar, but I can see that there is room for debate on the subject. I believe there was some news coverage of Dahoum’s pre-war visit to Britain, arranged by Lawrence and in company with another local resident of the Carchemish area; but I’ve never taken the trouble to dig it up. Tim Bray (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I don't think he is notable enough in his own right to have a page, but certainly notable enough to be merged with Lawrence.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect) -- My immediate reaction to this was NOTINHERITED. I do not think the tag for facts being unverified is appropriate. The article sets out the issues clearly. Lawrence died in a motor cycle accident some 80 years ago and the subject nearly a century ago: as often with historical subjects, certainly is impossible. The subject's only potential notability comes from his connection with Lawrence, at a period of his life when Lawrence was a not particularly notable young archaeologist. The whole thing seems to be a COATHANGER for the innuendo that Lawrence was gay, an issue of which I know little. However I am disturbed at the number of historical figures whom the LGBT lobby has appropriated to its cause, often on the basis of very limited evidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NOTINHERITED; no opinion on a redirect to T. E. Lawrence. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to T. E. Lawrence, or else weak keep (but rename) if someone wants to put in a lot of legwork here. Dahoum was a real person, and he's discussed in quite a bit of real literature—respected biographies and scholarly publications—but, so far as I can determine, always in context to his relationship with Lawrence (whether that's his work relationship, as a photographer, and the potential that some of the photographs accredited to Lawrence were taken by Dahoum instead; or the theorized homosexual relationship, which modern sources are pretty divided on, but which the contemporary Arabs certainly believed was actually occurring). There's simply no coverage of him separate from the actions of Lawrence, and that's pretty much the keystone of NOTINHERITED. That said, I could be proven wrong here; if the article is to be retained, I'd strongly suggest we title it under the individual's real name, Selim Ahmed, with a redirect from his (widely used) sobriquet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navalpreet Rangi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically WP:SOAP created by a WP:SPA with a WP:COI (that has been on a tirade to advertise this person by creating articles about companies that they may be involved in). IMHO the article does not pass WP:GNG and as a result, it should be deleted. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Don't think the film is notable either - its article was also created by the same user who clearly has a WP:COI Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Kalantri

Amit Kalantri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the impressive list of references there's no evidence of notability. The references don't even allow us to confirm that Amit Kalantri, the author of the cricket biography, is the same person as Amit Kalantri the mentalist. Most are just words of wisdom attributed to a person of that name, but without any indication when or in what context Kalantri might have said them, or whether the person being quoted is either the mentalist or the cricket author. Huon (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  19:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  19:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person Amit Kalantri is an author. Removed the mentalist thing from the article. There are good references for his books which are third party published books with isbn number. There are many references which states the person is notable. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hideyoshi Kamitani

AfDs for this article:
Hideyoshi Kamitani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of being a sportsman achieving any notable level. Sources are not independant 3rd-party references, but merely accounts of matches. Does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON or WP:ENTERTAINER. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) StAnselm (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum

Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically a non-notable museum other than Greg Gianforte donated to it. Just a local place. Minimal significant coverage outside of the connection to the Gianforte campaign Montanabw(talk) 01:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- significant as part of the Young Earth creationism. Here are sample sources:
There has also been some local controversy around whether school trips should be allowed. I would say it's akin to the Creation Museum article and should be kept / expanded. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have super strong feelings either way, but I guess my question is the point at which a local controversy reaches "significant coverage." That other museum has been widely covered in the national press. Not so sure about this one. It got a lot of press because of Greg Gianforte donating to it, but take out all the coverage linked to him and there's not much left, IMHO. Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_May_28&oldid=782726801"