Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 5

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.235.231.28 (talk) at 16:30, 5 September 2017 (...oops). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 4 September 6 September >

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 move to International Phonetic Alphabet chart. (non-admin closure) Nardog (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Phonetic Alphabet/Tables

International Phonetic Alphabet/Tables (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:DEL13: A subpage in the main namespace. Nardog (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 03:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koohsar Mc

Koohsar Mc (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 rapper, sources are mostly primary and unreliable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. — Zawl 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Zawl 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Zawl 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Zawl 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. The references that aren't the subject's social media or WP:INHERITED links to another rapper's website are clickbait and spam. The Wikilinks to Maktab and Warp and Weft are to entirely unrelated articles. I'll change my mind if anyone can find reliable sources in Farsi. Richard3120 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I don't speak Farsi, and I don't have the access to Farsi sources that say, an Iranian IP would, but I tried searching the Farsi given as his name: کوهسار which seems to be his stage name "Koohsar", not his real name "Mostafa Javadi". The results were mostly attractions in the mountains of Iran. I found a little content at ReverbNation, but not nearly enough to satisfy any aspect of any notability guideline. From what I've seen he is far from notable, but I can't be sure because someone who understands Farsi or has access to Iranian internet may find information that was inaccessible to us. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kargil Movie

Kargil Movie (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)

Future film with no references. Fails WP:NFF. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete-No sources— RADICAL SODA(FORCE)TM 11:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Easy Walk To Freedom

No Easy Walk To Freedom (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)

album article with trivial referencing that does not go far beyond a track listing Jax 0677 (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fix the problems and/or discuss a rename, but the POINTy nomination is invalid -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) (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)

Nominating this for deletion because the view by the few active users who effectively control the article is that the article is entirely based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and that nothing about it is supported by WP:RS. When it is not possible to even have a lead section there isn't any point in having an article. User2534 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re:The Islamic terror wave in Europe from 2014 (or there about) is quite pronounced and few terror experts would dare dispute its existence. Actually this is a fallacy and none of the refs used support this assertion, certainly the majority don't. Apart from France, which had an explosion of attacks from 2014-16 there are few patterns across Europe and the number killed in both UK and Spain for example (even allowing for recent events), does not support such an assertion. That there has been any kind of pattern in Europe since 2014 is simply an unfounded and unsourced assumption. The sources used to support the claim have actually said things like 'many', not 'more' and have focussed on France, not Europe. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While there are apologists espousing this, you won't find terrorism experts expressing this view. See for instance CSIS's Anthony Cordesman (cliff notes here - [1]), fuller report here: [2]. Nearly all reported fatalities and most of the casualties were the result of jihadist terrorist attacks. The total number of 142 attacks is a continuation of a downward trend that started in 2014 when there were 226 attacks, followed by 211 in 2015..... Most arrests were related to jihadist terrorism, for which the numbers rose for the third consecutive year: 395 in 2014, 687 in 2015 and 718 in 2016. (he prefers to use Jihadist in preference to Islamist or Islamic Extremist/Fundamentalist - which is mainly a matter of flavor).Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone doubts that most many of the terrorist events and terrorist deaths in Europe since the early 2000s have been Islamist, people like IRA and ETA have been marginal. I didn't say that was not true, and your sources do not contradict my point, which - put briefly - is that there is nothing special about 2014 and the date does not mark any significant pattern EXCEPT in France when it was the year before the beginning of two years of very deadly terrorist activity. Your source says "If one looks at the START data on the total for Western and Eastern Europe, which includes Russia, the impact of terrorism peaks in the 1970s. It rises again in 1991, driven by terrorist attacks in the Balkans, Palestinian violence, and terrorism in the FSU and Russia. It then peaks for a third time in 2014-2015, driven by both violent Islamist extremism and terrorist activity in the Ukraine. Later it says: If one only examines Western Europe, the START reporting on the patterns in Western Europe shows a rise in incidents after 2010, driven largely by violent Islamist extremism and the influence and actions of ISIS, that reached new peaks in 2015-2016 .... Turkey was a key center of terrorist attacks because of political unrest and Kurdish separatism ..... from mid-2015 onwards. There are many other dates and stats in your sources, none of them supports your claim that "The Islamic terror wave in Europe from 2014 (or there about) is quite pronounced".
There is nothing significant about the year 2014 and the central claim which has opened this article since its creation, is a fallacy. 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2014 may be all significant milestones for some reasons, in different parts of Europe. Your sources themselves note that special factors apply in Russia and Turkey. I'm not opposed to a list of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe, or in 'Western Europe' I would simply like its logic and claims to be based on what the balance of best sources say and that is a great deal more complex than you, or the article are saying. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue 2013 or 2012 instead of 2014 - however this is a separate phase from previous Al-Qaeda/Global-Jihad in the earlier 2000s - in which we see "lone wolfs", "Islamic State", "Islamic State inspiration" - an generally a large amount of attacks (often disorganized and ineffective amateur attacks with improvised means (e.g. knives, cars, trucks). The reason 2014 is often cited as a date is number of casualties in Europe by year and Jihadists arrests per year in Europe. The underlying phenomena is an increase in the number of attacks and "Islamic State" influence as well as fighters returning from Syria to Europe.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the chart puts a first peak at 2004-6 (Sp+UK?), the 2005 London was of course 'lone wolves', so they are not new. I also noticed that your quote above says that 2014 was the beginning of a downward trend, our article has said the opposite since its creation. That there may be changes in trends, including that a small number recently are verifiably ISIS directed, and a much larger number may/may not be ISIS inspired, should be rendered in text, as should any 'Syria' element. IMO, the year and the 'Europe-wide' definition are simply 'stones round our necks'. What happens in Turkey or Russia has very little connection to events in Western Europe. Arrests is more of an indicator of host priorities than of acts. Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone doubts that most of the terrorist events and terrorist deaths in Europe since the early 2000s have been Islamist, people like IRA and ETA have been marginal. That's flat out wrong. According to Europol's yearly terrorism reports:
Year Total events Islamist events Total deaths Islamist deaths
2006 498 1
2007 583 4
2008 515 0
2009 294 1
2010 249 3
2011 174 0
2012 219 6 17 8
2013 152 0 7 1
2014 199 2 4 4
2015 211 17 151 150
2016 142 13 142 135

The majority of events have all throughout this period been separatist in nature, i.e. "people like IRA and ETA". No, really: pick a year, and more than half of the events that year will have been separatist events. TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See deaths classified as Islamist. Note that national authorities do not all have an Jihadist classification, but rather lump them in a basket. The number of Jihadist deaths and deadly Jihadist attacks has increased significantly from around 2014. Tactics and profiles of attackers are quite different than the previous AQ activity. Lone wolves existed previously, but not at these proportions.Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, I stand corrected about events, if not deaths, which would show an earlier peak, if Madrid train + London tube were included. My substantive point however is that the 2014 'start date', is at best, arbitary and at worst formulated on a number of fallacies as to whether/what changes occurred at that time, and that the overall picture is a great deal more nuanced than the article seeks to present. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear to coincide with the rise of ISIS, although not all of the people who carry out these attacks are card-carrying ISIS members, thus the need for a wider encompassing title. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It would appear to coincide with the rise of ISIS", but we know full well that only a tiny number of these attacks have any discernible link to ISIS, while large numbers of others MAY BE inspired by, and others have clearly no connection at all, so we'll bypass normal rules about rational objective criteria for lists and make it all into a pea-soup that clearly contradicts the best available sources. That, unfortunately, is par for the course on this article. Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alas - these are the challenged of "Lone Wolf Terrorism" - where the Jihadists attack after on-line indoctrination from social media, YouTube (e.g. Ahmad Musa Jibril), and other such loose connections - possibly leaving a note somewhere they did it for ISIS, ISIS claiming it, or something similar. Things were so much easier back in the 2000s when most of these had clear chains of command and direction from "terrorist masterminds". However - this being a defining characteristic (Jihadist lone wolf attacks, peppered with a few organized ones) - is not really in doubt by any terrorism expert (whether 2014 is the start year - debatable - but there is definitely a divide between the AQ early 2000s, the quiet Jihadist front in Europe 2006-11, and the current phase of "lone wolves with ISIS "inspiration"").Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason for deletion is "few active users...effectively control the article". No one controls articles on wikipedia. If it needs a lead, write one. I note that elsewhere people are arguing to delete a template because this page exists, which seems circular argument given this discussion Tim bates (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the nomination describes a content and/or behavioral problem. Take appropriate steps to arrive at consensus regarding the content of the article. If core policies are violated, pursue protection of the article and/or sanctions against users who persist in breaking the rules. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the reality that this article has been subjected to pitched battles over what qualifies as "terrorism," (battles fought by tiny numbers of editors on the talk page and won by the side that musters more combatants who are willing to keep arguing longer) it is a useful topic that can and should be improved by more eyes on the page, more editors, and, perhaps, by some sort of ranked language that would allow editors to designate type of support for an attack being terrorism-related. Rather than, as now, removing articles where any sort of doubt can be cast on the terrorism connection by editors, despite incidents being blue-linked and demonstrating well-sourced linkage to terrorist motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "nominating articles that are heavily sourced in very reliable international news sources are never going to be deleted, regardless of NOTNEWS," said someone. XavierItzm (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename "Care Bear Hugs in Europe" to appease bourgeois liberals. In all seriousness though, the talkpage pitch battles, where a small group of editors frantically fall over each other to try and keep out whatever most recent Islamist mass casualty attack has happened on that day from being mentioned (probably the most dedicated being TompaDompa), regardless of the mountain of mainstream media coverage, is a bit of a circus and a great waste of time/energy for those who are forced to try and uphold some basic standards in this area. So I can see where the nominator is coming from, though suggesting the article itself be deleted probably isn't the right way to go about this wider problem in this topic area and each issue should be dealt with individually. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Claíomh Solais: If you're going to mention me—here or elsewhere on Wikipedia—I'd appreciate if you would make my username a link to my user page so that I'm notified.
Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by a great waste of time/energy for those who are forced to try and uphold some basic standards in this area, in particular what the basic standards in question are? TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Rename Care Bear Hugs in Europe to appease bourgeois liberals." - you really do need to stop using wikipedia to play out your personal political and religious battles. It is really rather pathetic and distracting.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably one of those editors who frantically fall over each other to try and keep out whatever most recent Islamist mass casualty attack has happened on that day from being mentioned. I do this until a reliable police or govt source explicitly says it is Islamic/ist terrorism (ie not good enough that someone who is probably Muslim commits a crime with typical Islamist MO and/or some unnamed witness says they heard an Islamic slogan, according to one obscure source). While it may be difficult for Claíomh Solais to imagine, my motives are not because I am a 'bourgeois liberal', my motives include that I presume that any reader of WP over the age of 10, when they first hear about any crime that could well be Islamist, doesn't need me to confirm what could well be true, They are not that stupid and they would rather wait to read what is known rather than read what Claíomh Solais, or I, or any 'speculator' thinks is possibly/probably true. What is the rush to state definitively that a particular event is Islamist, before even the police have concluded that it is? Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in many, many cases, the connection to ISIS is either very tenuous (single source somewhere says possible self-radicalisation, had a black flag on computer, told friends he admired ISIS) or non-existent. Such a renaming would guarantee that the level of WP:OR would quadruple. Manchester arena, there is a possible ISIS connection via Libya, Westminster there is no connection, London Bridge there is a possible online 'linkage', Barcelona there is an ISIS claim of responsibility, but apparent 'local' radicalisation. Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second Pincrete. On lots of these articles we've had the argument (resolved eventually to Islamic Terror - after police investigation, etc.) - of "so what if ISIS claim it (they claim everything), so what if it was a Muslim attacker, he must have been a crazy person attacking for some non-terror reason". While a large proportion (not all) of these are ISIS "inspired" - determining each one was so inspired in difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • RenameWhy is 2014 the start date?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something like "Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks in Europe in the 2010s", write a decent lead, and list probable Islamic terror attacks since 1 January 2010. --TBM10 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I don't really care if you want to rename it to something else, though each rename vote has offered a totally different rendition of what the article should be renamed to and might need to be saved for a second discussion, but, it is obvious that this is a notable topic. The assertions in the nominating statement are ... well there's a 119 sources currently used in the article. They are applied all throughout the article except the lede which isn't supposed to have citations (exceptions exist). The fact that the lede isn't written is not a cause to delete. WP:OR is a dubius assertion, however, WP:SYNTH probably exists and it is arguable that the start date should be the 24th of May 2014. Why this date? None of this amounts to the article being non-notable or unfit for purpose. So no, don't delete this article, fix whatever problems it has. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trouvère Quartet

Trouvère Quartet (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:NBAND. DrStrauss talk 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile weapons

Mobile weapons (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)

While individual Gundams may be notable in and of themselves, this concept is adequately covered in the Gundam Wiki and violates WP:NOTPLOT on Wikipedia. It appears to be non-notable, and all sources are WP:PRIMARY. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Mobile Suit Gundam mecha as it pertains to suits, weapons, and armor and not just weapons, and then trim down per WP:NOTWIKIA and apply lots of WP:TNT for unsourced material. The navbox has a list of the most notable "Mobile weapons" which are different types of Gundams. Redirect Mobile weapons to Maneuver warfare which seems to be about mobile weapons in the real world. Most of the news searches on the Internet for pertain to real world mobile weapons and not Gundam ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Burvall

Amy Burvall (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:BLP1E -- no notability beyond that Lombardanian (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say in your edit summary "The article Amy Burvall should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. She lacks notability, and be page appears to be maintained by an associate who resists any changes.)"? If so 1) I am not associated with her in any way 2) Is this AFD a form of revenge for reverting you? Are you 209.117.61.226? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Educators' Videos Become YouTube Sensations"
"Amy Burvall & Herb Mahelona: History rock stars"
"Amy Burvall's history lessons set to pop songs are a smash hit on the web"
"Historyteachers videos in the classroom: interview with Amy Burvall"
The others are about her too as she is the main figure in the project. How are these "passing mentions"? Did you even look at the sources John? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comeback defending this deletion rationale because there can be no comeback. These are clearly multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published sources of presumed reliability — the essence of a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 14:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This individual has be the subject of multiple instances of substantial, independently published coverage in sources of presumed reliability and therefore passes the General Notability Guideline. See the footnotes for those, no need to search for more on the web. Allegations of BLP-1E are misplaced; this exception to GNG is for something exceptional not actually dealing with an achievement or meaningful activity of the subject — such as, for example, winning the lottery or appearing on a live television show and farting loudly. Such single incidents generate masses of news coverage which are to be disregarded; as opposed to someone who is known for one thing, such as being an expert on the reproduction of mako sharks or being the inventor of the traffic light or — yes — being the creator of historically rewritten song videos. This is something completely different. Note the word EVENT in "BLP-1E." Carrite (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per GNG. Adequate sourcing to establish notability. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- meets WP:GNG per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Undead Syndrome

The Undead Syndrome (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)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, a search found no reliable refs beyond a single article in Siliconera. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after sorting into more categories
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It sounds like it might be possible to write a new version of this, but it would need better sourcing and more objective inclusion criteria (which, in turn, would imply a new title). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of the longest gaps between film sequels

List of the longest gaps between film sequels (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 list is 100% original research. There are two sources cited in the article: One is the main page for an entertainment site (which may have said something about one of the films in question at some point in the past, but I cannot find anything relevant now. (The source is cited for the note that the entry on the list apparently should not be on the list: "Despite its title, the film is not a sequel to Aashiqui, and the only similarity is that 'both are music-based romantic films'.") The other discusses the Mary Poppins sequel, but does not mention the unusually large gap.

Searching the 'net, I find several sources discussing lengthy gaps between original and sequel (TRON, Blade Runner, Star Wars, etc.), but none claiming to be THE longest gap or a list of the longest gaps.

How do we know Bambi is the champ in this category? We don't. All we know is that someone added it here and no one has proposed anything with a longer gap.

Several of the films currently listed use spin-offs, prequels, made for TV and direct to video films. Several use "unofficial" sequels, such as the Wizard of Oz where the proposed sequel is not related to the original, the the book the second is based on is a sequel to the book the first is based on. Does that make "Raise the Titanic" a sequel to "A Night to Remember"?

With no source for determining what does and does not "count", I am left to wonder why a made for TV miniseries would count but a radio play, book, etc. wouldn't. If a TV show can be a sequel for a film, why isn't "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" a sequel to the original "Star Trek"?

Bottom line: Someone was intrigued by the idea that this article represents, but the sources simply do not exist to support an article. SummerPhDv2.0 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You seem to be suggesting that this should be an entirely different article. The current article claims to list the "longest" gaps: a discrete claim. The article you suggest is altogether different, as a casual look at your suggested sources confirms. Your first source, "PAJBA" seems to be a blog: no "about" page, no copyright notice. Its claim of the "longest" gaps jumps all over our list 1, 7, 32, 31, 39, 62, 115, 70...
Your second source puts "The Best Man" first on its list. Ours has it at #162. Next is #132, 136, 96, 70...
Source #3 doesn't claim to list the "longest", giving a list of 6 "long delayed" sequels.
Source #4 is the "most absurd gaps". There third gap in this list of sequels is Star War VI to Star Wars I, a sixth degree prequel.
  1. 5 doesn't give a list or claims of the "longest", but is an article about the concept of sequels after decades have passed.
The three of your sources give us a hodgepodge of long delayed sequels that we would probably package in a list format to make it look like a countdown of the longest, similar to if we change List of films considered the worst into List of films that weren't good or wrote List of businesses that made a lot of money.
There might be material to write about Long delayed film sequels, if we can resist the urge to claim we have created a definitive list. To the extent that reliable sources discuss prequels, made for TV and direct to video, we can do the same. We might even find sources tying the distant cousin films. We do not, however, have a verifiable list of the top ten (or 20, or 200...) longest gaps. We also don't have objective, sourced criteria for a list of long delays. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm sympathetic to the nom here. This is a loosey-goosey definition very badly compromised by a near-complete lack of sources. Who says that there weren't any "sequels" between Film X and film X2? Define "sequel" -- do we include films in canon? Fan films? Have foreign sources been scoured? Is a "film franchise" a unitary thing, and the sequel has to be made by the rights holder of the first film? No ... I wouldn't even consider keeping such a list without 95%+ of the entries sourced, and it's more like 5%. Nha Trang Allons! 19:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The whole thing is too open to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just improve sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.129.128.40 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There don't seem to be reliable sources for a list like this. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All it needs is strong criteria and maybe a name change. It appears to now use 10 years as the length. What counts as a "sequel", (Note, the lead does not use the term sequel, but "consecutive installments of a film franchise".) I think the list needs to be parred down. Most of the tv shows removed. If it is film franchise, the "films" should have either had a cinematic release or was shot with the intent to have a release. As for citations, all that is needed is to prove: the two films are in a franchise, there is no other film entry between them, when they were released, and they are films. Zginder 2017-09-01T07:11:57Z
Comment - List of films produced with the intention to release them in theaters that are part of a franchise with no film in between them with a gap of 10 or more years is the reason we don't have List of United States legislators who are part of a family with a gap of 50 or more years between legislators. While we might have a source saying that Billy Smith is the first member of Congress in his family since his great-great-grandfather in 1840, we don't have sources discussing the topic. It might be worth including in the article about Billy, but we don't have sourced criteria for a list. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing we use a title like that. Many lists and articles are titled slightly wrong because, it a title that will get more searches. I think something along the lines of "List of long gaps between film sequels". Notice wikt:sequel includes the usage of a prequel or other film in a franchise. Zginder 2017-09-02T02:34:13Z
The point: We do not have any sources discussing films produced with the intention to release them in theaters that are part of a franchise with no film in between them with a gap of 10 or more years. We have a handful of sources discussing "long gaps" between sequels. That their varying criteria are is not explained anywhere is not an invitation for us to create our own. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We only need sources for the dates of the films release, which for most of them is the same place. Zginder 2017-09-03T11:09:06Z
List of tallest buildings and structures is encyclopedic and backed by reliable sources stating which structures are the tallest. This article currently aspires to mirror that, but fails as the sources simply do not exist. List of tall buildings and structures does not exist because "tall" is a vague, relative term (in my neighborhood 5 stories would be very tall, while it would be tiny in Manhattan). Dumping this article and starting a new List of films with long gaps between sequels echos that problem and invites us to create a topic out of thin air: 5, 10, 15 years? Sequels, prequels, spinoffs, soft-reboots, alternate universes? Theatrical release, direct-to-video, made for TV film/miniseries/series? Take your pick from each list and tell me why that version of the list is encyclopedic while other variations of the list are not. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the lists in List of tallest buildings and structures appear to be mostly or completely unsourced. Yes, there is an official body, but the Wikipedia entry goes way beyond the "official" lists. Zginder 2017-09-08T08:04:14Z
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there any thoughts about how this list fits within our policies on lists?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:SYNTH. The concept of "sequel" here is hazy, subjective, and open to interpretation, for example Cinderella II is a direct to video movie with not nearly the same impact as the original Cinderella continues to have. Therefore this list doesn't have much encyclopedic value.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is the concept of sequel possible. I think it is. This list needs love not deletion! Zginder 2017-09-08T07:33:17Z
      • I have removed all the direct to video and TV movies from the page. It seems to be the one thing that everyone for deleting and keeping agrees on. Zginder 2017-09-10T03:05:25Z
  • Delete As per Zxcvbnm; SYNTH and LISTCRUFT. A simple "list of sequels made over 40 years after the original movie" would be better, but is unlikely to be notable either. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here thinking I would likely vote to keep this, but delete. Possibly merge some discussion of the longest gaps into Sequel, but only if they are well-sourced. bd2412 T 02:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you provide detail as to your reasoning?Zginder 2017-09-08T07:41:07Z
      • I do not find that the article demonstrates the proposition that the existence of a really long gap between sequels is a notable thing to document. A ten, twelve, fifteen year gap doesn't seem all that noteworthy, and there are no sources provided to explain what is considered to be a "long" gap; many of the entries are at least problematic. Also, is a story with a different set of characters set in the same fictional universe a "sequel"? Is a prequel a sequel? Is Superman Returns, with a completely different cast playing the same characters, properly called a "sequel" to Superman IV? There is no basis presented in reliable sources for delineating a list. bd2412 T 02:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • As referenced early in the discussion and in the article lead, the word, "sequel", is not to be taken literally. It is shorthand for any additional film to a franchise except for remakes. I would also like to remind you that just because there are some questionable entries does not make the list deletable. If you have a problem with a listing, then remove it or bring it up on the talk page. Zginder 2017-09-13T06:50:12Z
As also referenced earlier in the discussion, maybe the word should be taken literally. Or not. Or somewhere in between. Maybe we should include TV series and/or books/comics and/or miniseries and/or direct to video. Since no reliable sources discuss criteria, maybe anything goes. If you think Gravity is a sequel to Speed 2: Cruise Control, maybe we can create criteria that would allow that. You are suggesting we create a topic for which there are no reliable third-party sources. Having thus fully discarded WP:N and WP:V, we might as well create "List of yucky vegetables". - SummerPhDv2.0 12:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally I think some editors are overthinking it, and sources are not required (Its a list, go to the film's page and look at the date), but I do fail to see why this particular list should be included in an encyclopedia. L3X1 (distænt write) 12:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Macdonald

Curtis Macdonald (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 believe this fails WP:NMUSIC. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Almost no coverage of the musician in independent, reliable sources. The article has two references of which only one is valid. Apart from being undersourced, some of the content in the article edges on puffery such as "He married the improvisational nature of jazz with the memorable melody of popular music..." and "...his sound of transparency and floating delay underscoring the melody performed by an acoustic piano would constitute an original style". The external links appear to compliment this promotional tone. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 15:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Wackerman

Brooks Wackerman (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)

Clearly fails WP:GNG despite being in multiple bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 —SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

User Page (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 film-maker. A WP:BEFORE search in news and only a couple of passing mentions in the literature. What there is lacks significant coverage, being only passing mentions. There is insufficient coverage of any depth or persistence in reliable sources to pass WP:ANYBIO, let alone WP:NCREATIVE. — fortunavelut luna 13:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geewan

Geewan (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)

Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 TT me 13:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crack (2017 film)

Crack (2017 film) (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)

Only the film got announced in 2016 with no signs of release for now as well as the principal photography has not been commenced should be deleted for good. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Advertisment— RADICAL SODA(FORCE)TM 12:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. While there is uncertainty whether meeting NCRIC alone is sufficient or not (which should be clarified at NSPORTS), the consensus here clearly leans towards requiring meeting at least the GNG. Redirect was an option, but List of Hertfordshire County Cricket Club List A players is a redlink (List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players, which was suggested as a target, is about another county (herT vs herE)). No objection obviously against a redirect if a suitable target is created. Fram (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Tom Cranston

Tom Cranston (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)

PROD was removed.

Despite meeting WP:NCRIC, Mr. Cranston does not meet WP:GNG - I have been unable to locate sufficient in-depth sources that discuss him as a person. Per the FAQ on NSPORTS, passing the sport-specific notability guidelines is not a substitute for the GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Greenbörg's suggestion, I would also be in favor of a merge to any suitable list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per WP:CRIN. We were having a considerable amount of debate a while back and we realized that the two notability guideline pages completely contradict each other, and such is the problem in this case. This is not a problem with WP:CRIN but with the policy makers.
In any case, the individual passes WP:CRIN and is therefore entitled to an article. If you delete this article, you might as well delete willy-nilly every single article of every single sportsman who has achieved a single top-level appearance. Bobo. 11:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would be 100% on board with that, assuming that those people did not otherwise meet GNG. We are not intended to be an indiscriminate collection of stubs. There have been tens of thousands of cricket players throughout history. It is ridiculous to think that merely appearing in one top-level game confers to each of them an encyclopedic level of notability. If the only reference we have for someone (or something! this opinion is not limited to cricketers) is a single reference to a statistical database, we don't have enough information to support an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm female, thanks, and that wasn't vandalism, it was a good-faith attempt to create an article that satisfied our standards in 2003. It was rightfully deleted in 2006 because we tightened our notability criteria. The point I was actually attempting to make was about changing notability criteria. I appreciate your mud-slinging though, don't think I've ever been accused of vandalism before. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I've expanded the article a little bit, and there are a few other news reports, but they are all merely trivial coverage. It's pretty clear to me that this guy showed a little bit of promise in his teens, and Herts gave him a go for a few games. That he played a List A match (the first round of the C&G Trophy) is pretty inconsequential, it was clearly not at the top-level. His club cricket has been relatively ordinary; he doesn't even play in the highest division, and yet he isn't setting the world alight. I know tons of people around this level – they simply aren't notable, List A or no List A. Harrias talk 19:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please forgive me as my current level of activity on WP is limited by outside circumstances. "Gave him a go for a few games" is not the issue. The issue is about judging the inclusion of an article based on existing criteria. If people are unwilling to do that, then may I suggest they suggest new, and consistent, criteria, by which to judge an article about a first-class cricketer? When an issue such as this comes up, there is always a lot of "I don't like it", but very little discussion about how to fix things. Suggestions please as to how these criteria should be changed. Bobo. 07:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is based on our guidelines, without any element of "I don't like it" at all. WP:NSPORTS and it's subpages, such as WP:CRIN are designed to establish whether a player "is likely to meet the general notability guideline" (my emphasis). WP:N, often cited as disagreeing with this, actually states that "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." In this case, Cranston is already included as a subject of List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players. WP:CRIN and WP:NSPORTS suggest that he might be notable enough for his own article, but in the face of the evidence provided by the sources, I suggest that he is not, as laid out above. I have no issue at all with where we set the bar in WP:CRIN: I think that one first-class, List A or Twenty20 match is a fair line to suggest that a player might be notable, but it is a guide, nothing more than that. Harrias talk 08:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it shouldn't be hard to verify that a modern player meets WP:GNG. If it's proven they don't meet WP:GNG, the article should be deleted. Hack (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but this is precisely where the confusion lies and where we need to sort out before randomly sending articles we dislike to AfD just for banter purposes. The last time an article which met WP:CRIC was sent for deletion, we pointed out (I forget by whom and where) that the two main sources of decisions about what to do when an article clearly meets guidelines, completely contradict each other.
However, I stand by my previous comment. The fact that we're accepting the judgment of a Wikipedia vandal in what should and shouldn't be allowed on the site is... suspicious, to say the least. Bobo. 04:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time you've called me a vandal on this AfD and I insist you strike your unwarranted personal attack. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. Do you wish for me to post the link again? I shouldn't have to... especially given as I don't remove material from my talk page...
I would be interested in seeing you cite what you believe was the appropriate notability requirement at the time, given as you are questioning whether an article which the community has collaborated on clearly meets notability requirements... and that you state that you believe your article met notabliity requirements. Bobo. 05:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo192:, Premeditated Chaos created a page, which at the time she felt met the notability requirements. It's worth mentioning that back in 2003, there basically weren't anything like the structured notability criteria we have now. This is how the Notability page itself looked in 2005. In her time on Wikipedia, Premeditated Chaos has had only one of her mainspace created pages deleted; you have had seven mainspace pages deleted; from this, do we draw that you are seven times as much of a vandal? Or rather, than you have both been working to create an encyclopaedia, and a couple of times created articles that were later found not to be suitable? Based on the fact that it is clearly the latter, please retract your personal attack. Harrias talk 07:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. In fact, I have had more than seven of my articles deleted, but I'm interested in which seven you are referring to. Some of them were Scottish footballers for Alloa Athletic, prior to my being aware that only the top two Scottish leagues were considered notable enough for the site. Admittedly I forget why I added Abbas Jawad - perhaps he was in a squad list or similar and I added every name from that squad list without checking their prior history? Not sure. Once again, I accept that this was deleted. I suspect the same was true of Shameel Kazmi... Ryan Watkins was mis-redirected at some point, the subject was changed, and the article was deleted on those grounds. Joachim Alda and Franz Alexius was part of a project of mine to translate as many missing articles from de.wiki as possible - I must have overlooked their individual notability as per en.wiki guidelines. Hold my hands up to that one. Adrian Pelka I had no idea about to be honest. Again, I had listed a group of footballers from de.wiki and was in a process of translating. Nine further Scottish footballers as I was once again unaware that the notability requirements differed from those of English football... nine Belgian cricketers as I was once again finishing a list from what was, at the time, the second column on CA. One cricket article which was accidentally mistyped, redirected and then deleted as an RfD, one further Scottish footballer, and one cricketer who once again was a redlink in a list that I was filling in and which I now know does not fit WP:CRIC.
In other words, 99 percent of what I was doing was misplaced completionism! Which, apparently, is the problem here..! Bobo. 10:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At some point we will have to go through articles such as 2003 Youth Asia Cup and remove redlinks of cricketers who don't meet WP:CRIC requirements. That would clean up the possibility of this happening in the future. Bobo. 10:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're here, why don't you explain what you mean by given as I don't remove material from my talk page...? Are you suggesting that I edited our conversation on my talk page, because if that's the case I'd love for you to show me the diff where I did that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I said nothing of the sort. You created an article which to me looks like a bona fide CSD G1. Something bored schoolchildren do as a laugh when they think their teacher's back is turned in ICT lessons. Bobo. 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty simple proposition. He's either been the subject of significant coverage in reliable or he hasn't. The cricket notability guideline is used as a guide to gauge whether a player has received such coverage. The nominator is making the case that Cranston fails the general notability guideline. Hack (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for whether he fails GNG, this is precisely the point I've been making. We have discussed, on AfDs such as this, contradictory information about whether an article which already meets individual project notability criteria needs to meet GNG or not. This is where the confusion lies. Which, to me, completely invalidates GNG. Bright-line notability requirements are the only way to achieve true NPOV. Bobo. 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if you are claiming that we are focusing on a "single reference" to a statistical database, any single person who knows anything about cricket reading this page could just as easily supply a second. Bobo. 05:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it seems odd to me that no matter how many times we come upon cricket articles which are acceptable for Wikipedia, not a single time have we ever changed our perspective on what does, and doesn't, qualify a first-class or List A cricketer for inclusion. Valid suggestions please as to ways we can alter our inclusion criteria. Bobo. 05:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please forgive so many comments in a single line. Just providing questions for participants to answer while I'm still within reach of a computer. I don't see where the conflict is here with GNG. :"Significant", yep. The biggest online cricket database on the Internet. "Reliable", yep. We've proven this many times that CA and CI are independently run organizations which compile stats (which don't always agree with each other), which proves that one doesn't simply rely on the other for "stealing" stats. "Sources". Yep. No explanation. "Independent of the subject". No explanation needed.
The question about whether the word "sources" (plural) is the issue has been touched upon before, and as I've said already, this is easily rectifiable. Bobo. 06:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG, no evidence article subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of WP:NSPORTS however this is not significant coverage per WP:SPORTSBASIC, being made up of Routine game coverage. Subject-specific notability guidelines are designed to provide a guide as to whether a subject might pass WP:GNG. This is useful for older topics when access to reliable sources may not have been readily available however this is a modern sportsman whose career is currently underway. The fact that significant coverage can not be found for a contemporary sportsman suggests that the subject is not notable. Hack (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Andy Armstrong, Alan Bell, Stuart Boon, John Cundle, Christopher Debenham, Neil Gladwin, David Hughes, Nigel Ilott, Richard Jerome, Ronnie Kotkamp, Andy Lewis, Jamie Murch, Tom Pearman, Tony Skeggs, Chris Thomas, Neil Vartan, Matthew Walshe, Lawrence Wright. All cricketers, just for Hertfordshire, who have made a single List A cricketing appearance. Feel free to AfD these too - it would be hypocritical not to, right? I'll be glad to make lists for other teams if you wish... Bobo. 18:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - an as-yet unquoted guideline: "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:SPORTSPERSON, my emphasis). Perhaps this is the source I intended to mention when I said that there was contradictory information as to whether sportspeople automatically bypassed GNG... Courtesy ping to @Premeditated Chaos:, @Harrias:, @Hack:. My fault for not seeking this out before. My personal belief is that this contradictory information completely invalidates WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON equally. My on-wiki time is currently limited by outside forces. Bobo. 03:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see absolutely no contradiction. Indeed, if we were talking about a cricketer from the 1960s or 1890s, I would be fully behind WP:CRIN based upon this. However, this is a player from the 2000s, during the internet age. We have no need to presume anything. If there was going to be significant coverage, we should be able to see it. Indeed, we can see enough information to build up a decent profile of the player. I have included in the article all that I have been able to find, and made further conclusions above. When we had no other information, we could look and think it was likely that there was "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". However, we have now looked and discovered that there isn't. Harrias talk 06:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I see the word "presumed" as the biggest weasel word in this entire conversation, as it is based on nothing more or less than personal opinion. Which, thankfully, isn't the fault of either one of us, because it is present in an (incredibly woolly and, as we are gradually learning, practically inapplicable) guideline. Saying that you apply different standards to a player of the 1960s-80s to one of the 2000s is, in itself, admitting time-bias - which, we both have to admit, is going to happen with every single player before the introduction of the Internet age. Surely, in this case, we are questioning the wrong player from the wrong era. Bobo. 08:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of argument, not all of which is about the article, perhaps the issues to do with policy have been discussed and some proper debate can happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to you, Pharaoh, it may seem "insignificant", but as per WP:CRIN guidelines that is enough for an article. Please feel free to suggest, discuss, and request implementation of the criteria you wish to measure cricket articles by. Saying "it is insignificant" is meaningless if you don't suggest what you would believe to *be* significant.... Bobo. 17:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you are right, @Aguyintobooks:, thank you. This debate goes deeper than this article and needs looking at significantly outside of this AfD. Bobo. 17:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still believe we are working on the basis of two completely contradictory guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON. GNG is ridiculously woolly and inspecific when we are working purely on a binary decision. Bobo. 18:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Reyk:, how many games would you like to see a player achieve before you considered him "sufficiently" notable? This is precisely the question which needs answering. A criticism of a guideline without a workable solution from the criticizer is meaningless. Bobo. 18:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to every single comment at an AfD and pinging editors insisting they justify their reasoning to you in detail verges on bludgeoning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. If we weren't trying to justify answers to questions about articles which clearly pass notability guidelines I probably wouldn't. I'm merely attempting to provide valid discussion points about implementation of notability criteria, precisely as Aguyintobooks suggested we do, and precisely what some people are ignoring. If you really want to make some attempt to alter notability criteria, here and now is not the time or place. Bobo. 23:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If I wasn't convinced by the badgering of previous participants, I certainly won't change my mind at more badgering directed at me. Reyk YO! 05:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One more and I'm done. Seriously. Act like children, get treated like children. It's simple. A, I didn't start the "badgering", I was thanking a user for making me look at a specific guideline which I doubt many people have actually read before judging by this conversation, B, it's not "badgering", learn new words please, I was specifically thanking three people (at the same time) for making me look at criteria I'd honestly not read before, C, the fact that we are going against years'-worth of criteria which we have continuously, boringly defended to the point of driving people insane, is hypocritical to levels I've never seen here before, D, not a single person who has ever voted "delete" on a player with a single first-class appearance has ever said, "but this is a viable, alternate, NPOV solution to years and years of notability criteria which we have stuck to". End of the day, this is a conversation which needs to take place somewhere completely other than here. By more people than have participated here.
For what it's worth. I'm sorry. I have an explanation for my frustration but this is the last place anyone wants to hear it. I refuse to make excuses. Accept my apology or not. I'm done. Bobo. 07:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments for deletion are unconvincing and I do not accept that there has been any downgrade of WP:SPORTS vis-a-vis GNG. Jack | talk page 11:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2002_Cheltenham_&_Gloucester_Trophy#First_round. He was part of notable event with any doubt but scoring only 18 runs in your only List A match is not enough to be part of multiple non-trivial coverage. Similarly, we don't create article on everyone who was part of the cast of a notable film. Instead, we have article when he/she has done major role in multiple films. Secondly, we don't have article for individual who was part of notable event like terrorist attacks. Instead, we redirect them to the event for which they were notable. I suggest we should do this for modern cricketers. Redirecting and adding categories to the entry will be better than deleting because afterall he passes WP:CRIN. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Premeditated Chaos:, @Bobo192:, @Hack:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:, @Harrias:, @Reyk: I'm against deletion of any cricketer bio which passes WP:CRIN. Redirecting to better target for such cases will be better for the project. We will keep his name in the list such as List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players which he deserves rather deletion altogether. I think this could be good starting point to sort out notability related issues of modern cricketer. Calling for deletion will not solve issues mentioned. We generally redirect Playboy Playmates to the list for which they are notable. For example, Michelle McLaughlin is redirected to List of Playboy Playmates of 2008. They all are one line biographies. So, doing something like that will be useful for the project. I hope other who voted delete will understand the problem. Any good suggestion will be welcomed. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've said, I'm in favour of presenting information like this in a suitable list. When an article on a (presumably) living person contains only statistical, rather than biographical, information it generally fails WP:GNG and so it is best to present it in statistical form alongside other similar statistics. Inflating raw stats into prose often tempts the writer to add more than is actually in the source. Reyk YO! 13:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Reyk - are you wondering right now why I'm not asking you to stop badgering a participant in an AfD? Because I have better things to do like make Wikipedia a better place instead of having circular arguments like this. Don't criticize me for something and then commit it yourself. That entirely invalidates your position. Bobo. 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't badgering if Greenbörg specifically pings me asking for my opinion. Reyk YO! 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just like it wasn't badgering when I pinged people specifically asking for their opinion? Oops... that makes your comment conclusively invalid. Please stop. Bobo. 17:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, if you ping a bunch of people you may be badgering, particularly if you comment frequently and repetitively. If I respond to a ping, such as Greenboerg's, I am answering a request for comment in good faith. My opinion has been asked for; the badgerer's generally hasn't been. Do you understand the difference? You appear to be trying to provoke me with sarcasm and false accusations of hypocrisy. If so, you are wasting your time. It won't work. Reyk YO! 17:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • "May be badgering". What an embarrassing climbdown. Your opinion is invalidated. Thank you. I was pinging so that people knew I had responded to them. For exactly the same reason everyone pings everyone about everything. Bobo. 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • The reason what you were doing was badgering is that you were only saying to me the same things you'd already said to every other delete voter in the discussion. There was no need to say it, and certainly no need to ping anyone about it. That definitely is badgering: if your replies to others failed to convince me when I read through the AfD, repeating the same things to me won't do the trick either. Now please stop these kindergarten attempts at point scoring. Reyk YO! 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That is the single most blatant lie in this entire discussion. You said that a single game was not good enough, I asked you how many games were good enough. You failed to respond, therefore you have no opinion. I'm still happy to read an answer if you are prepared to provide one. I doubt it though, Bobo. 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • On a (marginally) less disturbingly petty note, that kind of proves that a single game is the one and only reasonable and rational line in the sand. Bobo. 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. Keep or merge? Bobo. 17:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just compared the article as it was when deletion was asked for and the way it is now. This got sent to AfD for two reasons, because it was vandalized in its "sent to AfD" state (bolded for clarification) and because there was no infobox. The article wouldn't have been sent for deletion if it were not vandalized and if it had had an infobox... because it would have looked prettier. And yet we are apparently against raw stats articles. Bobo. 17:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG. Meeting NSPORT is not an alternative to meeting GNG; it merely means there's a good reason to think that an athlete does meet GNG when sources not in the article (or not easily available online) are taken into consideration. In this case, even the keep voters haven't argued that this presumption is actually right in this specific case.
    The GNG-NSPORT relationship has been discussed ad nauseam, including quite recently in this very long VPP discussion where the consensus on this was affirmed:
The first theme developed a strong consensus that the GNG is the controlling guideline, while the criteria at NSPORT are useful tools to try to quickly determine the likelihood of an article meeting the GNG. [...]
There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion.
As noted by the nominator, this is even in WP:NSPORT's own FAQ:
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline.
Sideways713 (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect – I was evaluating this discussion in a closing/relisting role, when I realised that discussion is probably too controversial for even a non-admin relisting, let alone a full NAC. I also realised that I was opinionated on the discussion. For most of my reading of the discussion I was swinging towards 'keep'—which is my starting viewpoint for all AfDs (except my nominations)—due to the vast number of policies cited by Bobo192 which state that the general notability guideline does not have to be met for WP:NSPORTS to apply in practice. In general I lean towards that argument, because—as stated above by L3X1—GNG is just too general for specific areas of content. But that's not policy.
However, reading later on in the discussion, I saw Sideways713's argument above that pointed to this heavily participated village pump discussion. When it was happening I had noticed it was there, but didn't seem to be around for the closure. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. The 'weak' is rather because that closure has not been linked or obeyed much, and is not in common use. The redirect should happen as per WP:ATD-R. Sorry for having to make this argument quite lengthy. J947(c) (m) 07:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with clear consensus, nac, SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Ševčenko

Ihor Ševčenko (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)

Poorly referenced bio (tagged since 2013) of dubious notability. The award cited is nn itself: some personal foundation award Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  06:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1940 Canadian federal election

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1940 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1945 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1968 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1974 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1979 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1980 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1984 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1988 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1993 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1997 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2000 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election (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)
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (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 a compromise position at a time when the notability of non-winning election candidates was still a matter of debate, consensus started to permit non-winning candidates to be given mini-bio subsections in merged lists. So I'll grant that all of these were good faith creations at the time. However, consensus has now deprecated that, so that lists of this type are now permitted only to follow the table format demonstrated by Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election: their names can be present in the table, but per WP:BIO1E we're not allowed to maintain an entire biographical mini-article about each individual candidate anymore. Non-winning candidates simply aren't a matter of enduring public interest for that fact itself — if they're not notable enough for a standalone article, then they shouldn't have the content equivalent of a standalone article embedded into a list either. None of these lists are even comprehensive — the closest to a complete list in the entire bunch is 2006, which includes just 13 candidates out of a possible 308. If there were actually any editorial will to get these cleaned up for comprehensiveness and the removal of the biographical sketches, then I'd happily leave them alone — but that cleanup simply isn't and hasn't been happening at all, so the ones that aren't conforming to the rules they have to conform to need to go. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've updated the 1940 article to the proper format (for one province), and I'll suggest that the nomination for that page should be withdrawn accordingly. I could add the other provinces and update the other pages as well (though not right away); given that the subject matter is considered encyclopedic, I'm wondering if it would make sense to simply move the pages out of the main article space until such time as they've been properly updated. CJCurrie (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to support that alternative as well. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - Bearcat is completely misrepresenting BIO1E when they say we are "not allowed to maintain an entire biographical mini-article about each individual candidate anymore." That is nowhere in the guideline, nor should it be — I would advocate IAR to trump any such nonsense even if that were in the guidelines, which it is not. The rest of the nomination is purely an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misrepresenting anything whatsoever. The rule for candidates most certainly is that if they do not qualify for a standalone article, then we are not allowed to simply paste the same depth of content about them into another article and keep it just because that other article is titled as a list instead of a standalone bio. BIO1E and BLP1E apply to all articles which contain information about people, not just to standalone biographical articles titled with an individual person's name — lists of people are still subject to the exact same content policies that govern what we can or cannot say about a person in any other article that might contain biographical information. And as for cleaning them up being an editing matter, the issue has been lingering for years without anybody taking on the task of doing anything about it — there is a point beyond which "could be cleaned up" ceases to be a compelling rationale anymore for keeping content that isn't getting cleaned up. And I suppose YMMV, but at least to me seven years of nobody actually caring about cleaning these up does fall on the blow it up and start over side of that line. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1E doesn't have to specifically mention "mini-articles" to be applicable — it deprecates maintaining any extended biographical content at all about 1E's beyond mentioning their name where it's contextually relevant to do so, and doesn't have to individually readdress every possible form that such deprecated content might be presented in. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability policies only apply to articles, not sections within articles. In fact, it is entirely appropriate and in many cases recommended to merge such non-notable topics into sections within a larger, notable article. And in any case, AFD is not cleanup, and if the topic is notable, which nobody has explained why it isn't and even Bearcat implied that it is by citing, and not nominating, an article that is in the so-called "proper" format, then it should be kept and cleaned up. Smartyllama (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this has been over seven years of not getting cleaned up, and there has to be a deadline beyond which if an article still hasn't been cleaned up it doesn't get to sit around anymore continuing to wait for cleanup that isn't happening. And secondly, notability policies do apply to sections within articles; for example, a "list of people from city" is not allowed to contain non-notable entries at all, and articles are not allowed to contain extended biographical sketches of people who are named in them but don't qualify for standalone BLPs. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. See WP:NODEADLINE. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a user essay, not a binding policy, so I'm entirely within my right to have and express different views as long as I explain my reasoning in depth (which I did) and don't just rest on "I can ignore that just because it's an essay" arguments (which I didn't). Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is a real issue, and these people are not notable subjects. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability guidelines relate solely to what topics are suitable for an entire article and have nothing to say about what information may, or may not, be included as part of a broader article. Thincat (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability standards most bloody certainly do govern what can or cannot be included as part of a broader article. BLP1E/BIO1E, for instance, do not just apply to standalone biographies, but govern how much we are or are not allowed to say about an individual who falls under it in any article: an article about an event is not allowed to contain BLP1E-related biographies of individual participants in it; an article about a company is not allowed to maintain biographical sketches of individual people who work at that company, and on and so forth. Our standards for the notability of individual people pertain to all articles, and not only to standalone biographies titled with a person's own name. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is, I think, mistaken. WP:BLP policy certainly applies everywhere but you cited WP:BIO1E which is part of the notability guidelines. WP:N says (nutshell) " The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." The first paragraph says "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." It also says "although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." so this is a matter for talk page consensus, not deletion. WP:BIO1E is part of WP:Notability (people) which in general refers back to WP:N. Here, I accept, the nutshell says "Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article." (italics added). WP:Stand-alone lists is referred to which simply suggests what might be done "typically". BLP apart, all this is guidance and people should read and understand it as best they can and then form a considered opinion. Such matters are decided by consensus and people are not to have their !votes rejected if they do not !vote in a particular way. The hard rules you refer to do not exist. People are allowed (but are not required) to adopt strict rules for notability though the guidelines suggest not to do this. If there are BLP matters that is another matter entirely and potentially contentious material must be referenced or removed. Thincat (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there is no rule that we can't maintain a list of the candidates — there is a legitimate question as to whether such lists are necessary if they simply reduplicate information already present in the election's basic results tables, but that's a separate matter from this. But the rules do dictate that the list cannot contain extended biographies of any individual candidate who doesn't qualify to have a full standalone biography located at his or her own name — if a person does not qualify for a full standalone biography located at their own name, then keeping the exact same content about them, just because the article's title isn't their name, is not an alternative path to retention. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting all to allow further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cloud9#Current Roster . -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stewie2K

Stewie2K (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is not enough independent source material to write an article on this company at present. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Sugars

Satish Sugars (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 appear to pass WP:CORP. No other references other than company website, search on google news does not yield any good sources. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 05:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the article's references are currently lacking, a quick search found several references that are independent and reasonably in-depth: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] --Hazarasp (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To the extent that coverage mentioning this firm is available, it tends to be about concerns about concentrated politico-economic power and payment levels to farmers ([22], [23]). Of such matters, there is no mention in the article, which reads like a corporate website and is a good illustration of why articles written by connected contributors tend to be deficient in meeting WP:NPOV. AllyD (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico International University

Mexico International University (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, untouched entirely since 2009 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It takes slightly more than confirmed existence to guarantee notability. Is it accredited by the authorities? Does it have full-time students or classrooms or employees? Is it more than someone in their bedroom selling certificates? I tried to search for information but I don't know enough about Mexican education to know where you would find this kind of thing (rankings, directories, list of accredited institutions, etc), and the monitor.com.mx link wasn't working when I tried it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic XML

Dynamic XML (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)

Dicdef, sources do not appear to be reliable. Article managed to go nearly 8 years without a single edit, suggesting that this is not a notable topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after two relists. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kam Franklin

Kam Franklin (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, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. A local singer with short mention in local media. No notable awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - checking Google News I see that there are plenty of sources that can be added to the article. She is evidently considered a celebrity in Houston, which alone should justify the article, but it appears that she has achieved some notability outside of Houston too. And she has appeared on the David Letterman show. Robman94 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article to include 24 citations from publishers such as BuzzFeed, Edmonton Journal, Idaho Statesman, Houston Press, KPRC-TV, Houston Chronicle, Houstonia (magazine) and Consequence of Sound. Robman94 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not Weak This is valid, she is a lead singer of a band that has a released known album. Why would this reference of the lead singer of the The Suffers band be deleted just because one person believes it's invalid. Is Wikipedia about data, or some random persons view on validation.
  • Delete not enough sourcing to show she passes notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-wal

-wal (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 fails WP:GNG and fails to mention any sources, or the origin/meaning of the suffix. Vignyanatalk 10:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vignyanatalk 10:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given how many towns have this word in their name, I think it's noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. I asked a Pakistani friend about it and it turns out that the word implies possession. The wala and wali versions are the male and female versions. I am having a hard time coming up with RS to support the article, but of course, I am searching in English whereas you really want to be searching using Punjabi. Robman94 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have that book? If so, what does it say about -wal? Robman94 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable both as an element in placenames (ubiquitous in the northern part of the subcontinent) and as the extremely common Hindi/Urdu suffix. Noting that the two facets of this topic should be treated within the same article, so a merge with Wallah would be appropriate. – Uanfala 10:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B2B Pay

B2B Pay (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; rationale was: "Does not meet WP:CORP, as none of the independent sources (bar the article by Thomas Ohr) provides in-depth coverage."

Since then, all the references have been replaced by new ones, and the Thomas Ohr article is bizarrely gone as well. Of the new refs, there's just one that comes close to being WP:RS (the article by Sven Korschinowski), but it is devoid of anything that could be used for an encyclopaedic entry. Before prodding, I checked for reliable sources myself but drew a blank. Schwede66 09:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The strongest arguments were for keeping, including supplying sources, and having reviewed the article for AfC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Rennert

Jim Rennert (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:CREATIVE -- no critical studies, no work in major museums. FailsGNG -- sources are local papers, mere listings, and himself. , DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, First I should disclose I am the editor that approved this article out of AfC. References in the article include coverage by a New York City station, NYC parks department and artsy.net. Articles not included that could be added include articles by southwestart.com, santafeartajournal.com, and broward palm beach. His art has been featured in Union Square park in NYC (twice), which itself alone is potentially enough for GNG, not to mention a half dozen articles specifically about him, his work and exhibitions. Notability easily established, but that's not to say the article doesn't need improvement. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: need more people to make comment on this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: in addition to the references the article already cites, this, this and this constitute enough significant coverage to pass WP:CREATIVE. DrStrauss talk 17:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first is a local newspaper about a local attraction, which is not discriminating coverage; second is about a temporary exhibition, 3rd is from one of the many NY neighborhood websites. I think the right interpretation of NCREATIUVE is that it is an additional requirement on the GNG, in order to rule out temporary and minor material of this sort. But for those who think it just a guide to GNG, then the solution is to interpret the requirements for substantial, independent, and reliable strictly. Local news blogs are not RSs for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:CREATIVE, which would require inclusion in a permanent collection of a major institution. A temporary exhibit does not qualify. No SIGCOV to meet GNG either, so it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment WP:CREATIVE does not require that an artist be in museum collection: it simply says that if they are, notability is met. The collections criterion is one of several criteria for notability listed in WP:CREATIVE.96.127.243.112 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redrafitfy - Move back to draft. There's clear consensus that this does not belong in mainspace.

Beyond that, opinion is split about whether to delete it outright or move it back to draftspace. This debate is more about how we treat draft space and stale drafts in general than the article subject in specific. I'm going to move this back to draft. If somebody feels it should be deleted, bring it to WP:MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Sam & Honey

Sad Sam & Honey (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 toys. Fails WP:GNG. I failed to locate any significant and reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Some blog sources exist in search but their reliability and significance are doubted. — Zawl 08:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this as a draft and did not move it into the article space largely due to the lack of sources to establish notability. I personally think that the brand or characters are likely notable for how long they've been around and the amount of merchandising they've been on, but I also could not find significant coverage in sources to demonstrate this. If they exist, they are probably covered in pre-Internet coverage and industry media. —Ost (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-draftify I have a major problem with the following sequence of events happening within the space of a day (intermediate edits trimmed from log):
    1. 03:15, 4 September 2017‎ Legacypac (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,613 bytes) (+89)‎ . . (Submitting (AFCH 0.9))
    2. 22:48, 4 September 2017‎ Sulfurboy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,613 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Sulfurboy moved page Draft:Sad Sam & Honey to Sad Sam & Honey: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9))
    3. 01:21, 5 September 2017‎ Zawl (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,984 bytes) (+440)‎ . . (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sad Sam & Honey. (TW))
That is, the original editor had not submitted it for AfC, but someone else did, a second editor approved it, and a third editor immediately took it to AfD. That's not a fair or appropriate process for an article that the creator felt was not yet ready for mainspace. Pinging Legacypac, Sulfurboy, and Zawl to comment here if desired. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-draftify, to be completely honest, with how backlogged AfC is, I trusted that Legacypac had already made good judgement on assessing the article without critically looking at it myself. This is not to pass blame in anyway to Legacy, I'm just as at fault for not further reviewing the page, and won't make this mistake in the future. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page became eligible for G13 due to the expansion of G13 recently. I could have easily had it deleted. While reviewing the stale draft list I've taken to submitting promising drafts to AfC as a way of at least postponing deletion, often getting them published, or at worst getting a rejection that will guide the creator or other interested editor in improving them. In this case I think the long history and substantial sales justify a pass on GNG. Since most of the history is preinternet and the subject is not typical newspaper or academic material, I'd not expect a ton of easy to find sources. One would need to look in print toy trade publications. Blog hits would indicate a hobbiest following of the brand, which makes it notable, even if the blogs are not individually RS. This is good encyclopedia material, not promotional, and not problematic in any way. It surves the reader interested in old toys, a sizable group as an aging population seek connections to their childhood. Note I feel that AfC should pass drafts that are on appropriate topics and do not have serious problems - let the big pool of editors work on pages (many of whom have specialised interests) and let AfC act as a garbage filter. This is far from garbage, though not perfect, but should not be deleted or relegated to draft space where no editor with a suitably narrow interest to really do the topic justice will ever find it. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So Legacypac, I assume you're following the 'promising drafts' template discussion more closely than I am. Would sticking it back in draftspace with a promising draft template work to assuage everyone's concerns? Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt it User:Jclemens I've only seen the promising draft template used a handful of times (can you find how many translutions it has?) I've yet to see any of the same few editors that oppose changes to policy to improve draft space cleanup, oppose deletion of drafts at MfD, and demand more complex systems for handling drafts actually do ANYTHING to improve and promote these "promising drafts" they insist are being willy nilly deleted. Maybe I've missed something but I've got hundreds of such pages on my watchlist that have seen great protests against deletion made, but almost no one ever edits them. I've personally fixed and gotten promoted more promising drafts than all protesters combined. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RPG Gateway

RPG Gateway (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 such notability. Fails WP:NWEB. Greenbörg (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that per the discussion herein, if renominated for deletion at AfD in the future, these articles should likely be nominated separately. North America1000 16:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bspwm

Bspwm (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)

They don't have notability and reliable sources, also relies too much on references to primary sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar:

CTWM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amiwm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blackbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WindowLab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qvwm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vtwm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tvtwm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wm2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Larswm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Herbstluftwm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editor-1 (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it shouldn´t be problem to find some RS coverage at least for the older of them (Google books previews show at least few paragraphs in books about Linux for entries I tried). However, adding these sources to respective articles is another problem. 12 articles (well 11, as I somewhat improved AmiWM) about topic I don´t care is too much for my taste. On the other hand deleting this part of computer history seems to be too harsh solution. Pavlor (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not convinced they should all be judged together, it is easy to make mistakes that way. They are similar but not exactly the same. MartinJones (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick search affirms QVWM has references in assorted texts pertaining to Linux / Linux desktop administration, as well on relevant publications such as Linux Today. It's well-noted as an early Windows clone desktop environment, and a far cry from twm derivatives and tiling window managers on the list, which regardless of notability are far from 'similar' beyond the '-wm' suffix. 199.76.70.18 (talk)

  • Comment I'd be willing to bring these articles up to speed, with respect to reliable sources, but I need to know some decent sources. DuckDuckGo searching bspwm returns Reddit, a bspwm for dummies guide that looks more instructive than useful for encyclopaedic information, an ArchWiki article, its GitHub repo and several pages that belong to Q & A websites, the Manjaro bspwm spin, YouTube and bspwm packages. If someone has some decent sources I'd be happy to bring the bspwm and other articles up to speed. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 15:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Some participants herein have also opined for a potential merge, which can be discussed on an article talk page if desired. North America1000 05:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keel effect

Keel effect (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)

Dicdef, only one source, unlikely to be expanded. Full of buzzwords and techincal terms, doesn't seem notable. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Stated to be an aeronautical term but it is definitely not in use in mainstream aeronautical literature. This article was initiated nearly a decade ago but has since been abandoned in a poor state. Dolphin (t) 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may have been in an imperfect state since 2007, but this discussion on StackExchange demonstrates that it has been useful to others. It gets 600 visits a month, which is not bad for such a specialised topic. The effect is real, non-trivial, of interest to a wider audience - [25], [26], and the information can be verified in reliable sources. The current wording may be a little technical, but we don't require every article to accessible to general audience. A quick search shows that the term is commonly used by aviators. Rentier (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TenPoundHammer: It is a specialist aviation topic, so you won't find it in general news. Some specialist publications use it as a term, some have more detail, I would compare this to a mathematical topic. See.[1][2][3] Note also that this topic is referred to as 'pendulum effect' or pendulum 'stability'
  1. ^ Flying Magazine. 1945. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
  2. ^ Hitchens, Frank (2015). The Encyclopedia of Aerodynamics. Andrews UK Limited. ISBN 9781785383250. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
  3. ^ Senson, Ben; Ritter, Jasen (2011). Aerospace Engineering: From the Ground Up. Cengage Learning. ISBN 1435447530. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [27] ~Kvng (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an aeronautical engineer and pilot for close to four decades and I've never heard of it. It's probably notable in naval architecture, but it isn't in aeronautics. Dolphin (t) 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does show up in a lot of books written for pilots. ~Kvng (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mark viking I have created a Pendulum effect redirect. 15:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. bd2412 T 02:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChopSquad DJ

ChopSquad DJ (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, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant secondary sources to expand his biography and support notability. No awards or charted songs, and of the 14 sources cited in the article, "ChopSquad" is mentioned on just 7 of them--usually it's just his name. The sources are:

  • [28] - Trivial mention.
  • [29] - Mentions his name.
  • [30] - No biographic information. This source only supports that ChopSquad DJ produced the song "We Be On It" by Lil Bibby.
  • [31] - Mentions his name.
  • [32] - Mentions his name.

"kollegekidd.com" discusses him in two of the articles, ([33][34]), but this appears to be a user-submitted blog (though this may not be correct).

Even The Guardian mentions him in an article here, but just his name.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is understandable that music producers don't get the "credit" they deserve from media outlets. The subject produced the majority of Bang 3 which charted on Billboard's Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums thus clearly passing #1 of WP:COMPOSER and #2 of WP:MUSICBIO#Others. Nominator should note that aside the reliable sources, kollegekidd.com has editorial oversight and has been used multiple times on Wikipedia. PabloTheMenace (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 02:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the subject didn't "produce the majority of Bang 3"... he wrote and produced just five of the 26 tracks on the album, and none of those tracks are individually notable, so it's hard to see how he passes WP:COMPOSER or WP:MUSICBIO. Just because kollegekidd.com has been used in other articles doesn't mean it's a reliable source – it doesn't say anything about the editorial team on the website so it's hard to verify the claim that it has editorial oversight. Richard3120 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given that it's two delete and one keep case (without clear cut evidence) and one allow userfication; thus, if someone wants userfication they can ask on WP:REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Johnson-Hinds

Jordan Johnson-Hinds (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:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Has had a few bit roles and one recurring role. Meters (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Via Google you find more references, seems ok for WP:ACTORS because of his role roles in several television shows. TulongaN (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TulongaN (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
    • I have no problem withdrawing this if you can show that he has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I did not see multiple significant roles. Meters (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned with a number of SPAs editing this article to add similarly overinflated claims of his roles. Bit parts and a few recurring roles are written up as major roles or even starring roles. As I said, if there is sufficient reliably sourced evidence of significant roles I have no problem withdrawing this nomination. I'm not seeing it, and the continued push to overinflate claims is not only not convincing me, it is making me think that this is a case of socking or meatpuppetry. Meters (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe )³ 22:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miskel Spillman

AfDs for this article:
Miskel Spillman (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)

Only one claim to fame, did nothing else except host one episode. Every source I've found focuses only on the SNL hosting, nothing else. 2007 discussion was no consensus, 2010 discussion was filled with WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and other invalid rationales. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The existence of pages for all other SNL hosts is not what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is intended to mean -- as noted in the page itself, it's 'every Grey's Anatomy character having a page doesn't mean every Office character should', which is a slightly different issue. At any rate, I would agree with the arguments proposed in other AfDs that Spillman is a significant part of the SNL mythos and therefore notable. The strongest I would endorse is a rename to theoretically focus the article more on the episode than on Ms Spillman, but I think WP:BIO1E would categorize Spillman as a notable-for-one-event individual who rightfully received an article. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've massively reduced the article size. It would be strange to have a gap in the infobox here. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, something that very few editors who bandy its title about seem to do, and found that it contains the words

In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. For example, there have been AfD discussions for articles on individual area codes listed in the List of North American Numbering Plan area codes. Currently all links to area codes in use are blue links, which serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference.

The category of items here is SNL hosts, and the vast majority are notable, so in the interest of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference we should cover them all as long as they are verifiable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Në ato maja rripa-rripa

Në ato maja rripa-rripa (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:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 12:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last Relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Willie Earl Green.  Sandstein  06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Denise "Dee Dee" Walker case

The Denise "Dee Dee" Walker case (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)

Murder case which appears to be non-notable per WP:NCRIME. Little major coverage aside from the CNN article. DrStrauss talk 15:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Based on the article, which includes the reversal of aan erroneous conviction for murder, there should be extensive news coverage. It's not in the present article. Has the nom. done the required WP:BEFORE search? DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Willie Earl Green (whose exoneration seems to make this notable). There is some more coverage (including a whole book - with the exonerated man as an author (though it seems he wasn't the main author), written incidentally after the Wikipedia article): [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. If kept standalone - it needs to be renamed (e.g. Murder of Denise Walker).Icewhiz (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and Willie Earl Green. My news archive searches on the murder found nothing. I'm not saying that there might not have bee a news story that I missed despite using a variety of keywords, only that there couldn't have been much. What did come up was a BLP1E-type flurry on Green's exoneration. The Los Angeles Times reported the story, Green always maintained he was innocent, kept his nose clean in prison, got an associate degree, worked in the prison library and married his penpal - all while in prison. He had been convicted based on the sole testimony of an eye-witness who was high on cocaine at the time of the murder; also police had falsely informed the witness that Green had previously been convicted of stealing from the murder victim. Judge therefore ruled that Green did not receive a fair trial. Sum total of coverage appears to have been two news stories in the Los Angeles Times, neither very long. Plus an AP story and a UPI story that got picked up by a number of newspapers. All in March 2008. It is a story that tugs at the heartstrings. But I am not persuaded that either the murder victim or the falsely assused man are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- (Note: I'll accept if this is a merge but a redirect is not helpful for this unlikely search term) A tragic turn of events but this clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I just cannot find the significant and WP:DIVERSE coverage necessary to argue a level of notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Willie Earl Green. As a stand-alone crime, it was not notable; as a condition it is. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alwyn Hamilton

Alwyn Hamilton (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)
Rebel of the Sands (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)

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a writer, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NAUTHOR is that she exists. And for referencing, what we have here is two primary sources (her own website and her "our authors" profile on the website of her publisher) and one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and she doesn't get to talk herself into Wikipedia either -- she has to be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources, written in the third person by people independent of her PR team, to clear WP:GNG. I'm also bundling her debut book, which doesn't have any properly sourced indication of notability either -- its sole source is the exact same Q&A interview that isn't cutting it in the BLP. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alwyn Hamilton, and Rebel of the Sands, too. There are multiple RS of criticism of RoS and also for the sequel. Hamilton passes CREATIVE. I've added sources to her article, but don't have time to work on RoS, though you can see the sources that would be useful for the book in Hamilton's article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking additional feedback about book Rebel of the Sands
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Wing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guyball

Guyball (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 fictitious sport is a minor plot element within a TV sitcom. It has no notability outside the show, and TBH very little even within it, being essentially mentioned only in passing. I originally redirected it as part of a drive to trim an excessive amount of Green Wing-related content (I hesitate to say cruft) which had existed since 2006, but another user reverted the move, pointing out that this particular article is a GA (something I have to confess I hadn't noticed, and TBH I'm really surprised it was ever made one given that it is sourced almost entirely to primary sources and demonstrates no real world notability) and saying it should be brought to AfD instead. So here it is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Green Wing. The only WP:RS reference I could find was from the Independent with someone noting it wasn't included in a list of top ten fictional games because he hadn't heard of it until then.[41] I really don't see the slightest evidence of notability even compared to proper sports like Calvinball (which doesn't have an article either). --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Adding something to Aftermath of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami seems like a reasonable thing to do, but there's no specific support for that in this discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power Shortage in Japan 2012

Power Shortage in Japan 2012 (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 news article, not an encyclopedia article -- it covers the state of several related topics at a specific point in time. Most of the content in this article is covered in a more appropriate fashion elsewhere, including at 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Setsuden. Zetawoof (ζ) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some sources were suggested by Osoyoos but were rejected as not being WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridesharing.com

Ridesharing.com (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)

News searches returned only a single passing mention in Forbes. Open web searches gave nothing of any apparent value. All current references are to the official website. Does not appear to have garnered sufficient coverage to establish notability. Incidentally, article is fairly poorly written and overall promotional in tone. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every website that exists does not get an automatic inclusion freebie — it has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to qualify for an article, and does not get to keep an article that's metareferenced exclusively to its own self-published content on itself. And as for the claim that an article is mandatory because one exists on FR, that's not a notability claim either — FR is just as user-generated as we are, so the fact that an article exists on FR doesn't necessarily mean it belongs there. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS still applies to content on other language Wikipedias, and not just internally to EN alone. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- 100% promo article on a private company with no indication of notability or significance. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The page was cleaned up and several sources were added to provide a neutral point of view and an encyclopedic angle. Ridesharing.com is the most recent name and the majority of sources points towards the previous name The Carpooling Network or the French version Covoiturage.ca, previously Le réseau de covoiturage which has numerous secondary sources. DallasMultipass (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— DallasMultipass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources added by DallasMultipass.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dance India Dance#Seasons overview. bd2412 T 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Yadav

Shyam Yadav (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)

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Phillips (U.S. actress)

Amy Phillips (U.S. actress) (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: insufficiently notable performer (or, loosely speaking, actress). Quis separabit? 03:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Lintilä

Lasse Lintilä (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:NSPORT, the competitions do not have articles and are not notable and this article has few links from mainspace. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JD Donzo

JD Donzo (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 subject fails WP:GNG and hasn't gained significant coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article are all unreliable. A Google search of the subject only shows mentions of him being featured on the remix of a Liberian song titled "Pot Not Balling". Being featured on a popular song or being nominated for an award doesn't make one notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isadar

Isadar (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 written by a possible paid editor (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TiffanyTinnell). No evidence of notability. The 46 references consist of blogs, primary sources, and unreliable sources like IMDB. Rather clearly designed to look notable at a first glance with no substance. ~ Rob13Talk 02:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there are insufficient WP:RS to pass WP:BIO.

A sub-thread explored the more general topic of paid editing. This is obviously still a topic the community is grappling with, but our current policy only requires that paid editing be disclosed, and that requirement was met.

There was a suggestion to create a new Zedan family article and repurpose some of the content from here into that, but no support for that idea emerged. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amr bin Fareed bin Mohammed bin Zedan (Amr F. Zedan)

Amr bin Fareed bin Mohammed bin Zedan (Amr F. Zedan) (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. The cited sources are about polo, the company he inherited from his father, or his father, and he is only mentioned in passing. Promotional article, created by a paid WP:SPA (declared on talkpage). Edwardx (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification please --@Edwardx:, did you mean to assert that the main article contributor has lapsed from WP:PAID? If so could you please be specific about where and when they lapsed from th the PAID policy?
Yes, we should have a policy on paid contributions -- which the main contributor seems to have made a good faith attempt to comply with. I suggest that, if you CAN'T explain how their contributions lapsed from policy you overstrike that portion of your nomination.
Personally, I could agree with a PAID policy with restrictions that were harder to measure up to. However, I expect my fellow contributors to measure up to the policies we have, not the policies I would like us to have. Geo Swan (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan, I'm not seeking to suggest that the article creator has failed to comply with WP:PAID, merely that it being a paid-for article is something one might consider as a factor in decision making, particularly if one was on the keep/delete fence. As always, the matter of "independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources" should remain paramount. Edwardx (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above, if the main contributor has complied with PAID, as I am satisfied the article cites enough RS to establish notability. Johnpacklambert called bin Fareed a "non-notable businessman". As above, deletion is supposed to be based on policy criteria, not our gut feelings.
We might have a gut feeling that a foreign businessman, we never heard of, couldn't possibly measure up to our policy's inclusion criteria. But, when the article cites multiple references, shouldn't a "delete" comment specifically lay out why we discount those references? Geo Swan (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is whether we should Wikipedia:Assume good faith as to those being "independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources" when they have been added by a paid or COI editor, particularly in a foreign language with an unfamiliar script, like Arabic. Alas, beyond the numbers, I cannot read Arabic. Edwardx (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Garcia (businessman)

Julio Garcia (businessman) (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 only has routine coverage. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ferrari (businessman)

Alex Ferrari (businessman) (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_September_5&oldid=799096245"