Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 re-written article passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie the Pooh's Home Run Derby

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

Flash-in-the-pan news coverage that lasted two whole days. I have not been able to find coverage in reliable sources since then. WP:NOTNEWS. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've come across reliable sources that dedicate entire articles to the game:

It feels like there's enough to meet the WP:GNG, and I have a hard time applying something like WP:NOTNEWS to a video game. The scope of the article isn't about the event of Neogaf plays Winnie the Pooh Home Run Derby and finds it to be difficult, even if that's what initially spurred the coverage. Its about a game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Medium link is self-published. Is there a reason you included it? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you're right about Medium. I'm not totally familiar with that one. I think I was confusing it for another site. Struck. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The last AFD, which closed unanimously as "Keep", also noted that it had received coverage from NBC Sports, which would be pretty high level coverage for this sort of thing. The link is dead now, but it doesn't change that the coverage occurred, (and could maybe be archived and resurrected someday too.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one reliable signification source (NBC Sports article). Other sources are niche news sources and caspule sized articles at that thus not the world at large required at notability signification in depth. Spshu (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment is incorrect. The consensus at WP:VG/S explicitly lists Kotaku and Eurogamer as reliable sources, and PCGamesN and Daily Dot are frequently used at AFDs to prove notability. As its article suggests, PCGamesN has many editorial staff from past reliable source print magazines as well. I will concede I'm unfamiliar with "Medium" though, I'm open to input on whether or not that should be used. But we've got enough sources to keep even with throwing that one out. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment is spot on. While Kotaku, Eurogamer, PCGamesN and Daily Dot may be reliable sources, they do not meet notability source level ("...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time...") as they are niche news, ie. cover gaming thus are not the "world at large". Also, some of the articles are short thus don't meet the significant coverage in length, just like a encapsulate review doesn't meet notability requirements. Spshu (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. One of the main purposes of WP:VG/S is for determining notability of video games. You're free to disagree, but your personal assessment is trumped by long-standing consensus at the WikiProject level. Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the purpose of WP:VG/S is determining if a source is reliable not determining notability, those are determined here at AfD. WP:N is a WP wide consensus which trumps a wikiproject consensus (unless deferred to). Spshu (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you telling me the purpose of what I've been maintaining for the last 5-7 years? Not sure how you feel you're more qualified to define a project you haven't been involved in, (or flippantly contradict my last 5-7 years of AFD votes that have largely been based around WP:VG/S and have matched consensus) but you are wrong. Feel free to question the WikiProject on it. Yes, obviously every article at AFD is evaluated on an individual basis, but one of the main points of WP:VG/S is determining whether or not websites are reliable, and usable in determining notability. Websites like Eurogamer and Kotaku have a consensus and precedent for being sources that help meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep sources meet the GNG. If someone wants to challenge the list of reliable sources for video games, feel free to open an RfC. But that's where we are and I think it reasonable. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've completely rewritten the entire article according to the reliable sources above, in addition to a few others I found in the process. Please look it over prior to giving your !vote, as its an entirely different article from when it was nominated. Its certainly not perfect - it was a quick and dirty type thing considering time's a factor at AFD - but it shows it was possible to expand it out of stub status, make it more encyclopedic in tone, and meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the great job Sergecross73 did rewriting the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: please consider whether a !vote was placed before or after Sergecross73's rewrite when evaluating. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sergecross73 and Guy Macon. Lepricavark (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Fielding

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

Very little info on him, everything in the article is including his twin brother Owen. (They have appeared in 1-2 movies as the same character). Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article about a soccer/football player turn up in google search than this actor. Ksite (fansite last I knew) has him in a minor role for an episode of Minority Report TV show. Young Actor Awards seem such a minor award that I have not heard about, so that doesn't help his notability. Spshu (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way to little coverage to justify an article on an 11-year-old. We should respect the privacy rights of minors and require true shows of notability before creating articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CallerReady

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

A search fails to find any significant coverage in the reliable sources. Of the six references in the article, only the second appears to be significant, and it's from a source of questionable reliability. The first is to the company's website, while the last three are for patents. Other hits I could find online are merely company profiles and the like. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The second source cited in the article, which the nominator thought might be significant, appears at StreetArticles.com, where it appears that anyone can register and then produce an article, with no editorial supervision; it thus fails as a reliable source per WP:UGC. The piece cited lists its author as "Caller Ready", suggesting a close connection with the subject. Google searches for ("callerready") turned up no significant independent coverage; a Google News search produced no hits at all. Pretty clear failure to meet WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG as I could find no significant coverage of the company in any independent reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no WP:RS in the article. The subject fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.--Jersey92 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 20:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alampady Cricket Stadium, Alampady, Kasaragod

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

Was deprodded without comment or improvement. Searches turned up nothing to show this passes WP:GNG, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a coyvio from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/cricket-stadium-coming-up-in-kasaragod/article7128301.ece -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence C. Harris

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

Terrence C. Harris was an NCO with 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment (E Company and A Company). He parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and did not survive the month of June 1944. He did not attain rank or receive awards to qualify him under WP:SOLDIER and his untimely death leaves him with no general notability. His portrayal in Band of Brothers on TV is minimal. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, has no chance of meeting the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Reb1981 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

500 Miles High

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

The article has no references. It does not show any reason for notability. Reb1981 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those is a valid reason for deletion. If there are no references, one should first try to find some. If no reason for notability is shown, it should be sought. See WP:BEFORE. Now if one could say "There are no references, and a reasonable search convinces me that there are no sources." that would be different. DES ^(talk) 10:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is now nearly 500 words long, with 18 cited sources. It shows billboard charting of an album containing it, an award for "Best improvisational solo", and covers by such notable artists as Stan Getz. Significant critical commentary is quoted. The song is a recognized jazz standard. I think it is pretty clearly notable. I also think that a pretty basic WP:BEFORE search should have found at least some of this. The first few references I found were listed in our article about the album, which was the only wiki-link in the version nominated for deletion. Many of the rest appear in a basic google search. DES ^(talk) 13:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reb1981, Do you still think that the article "does not show any reason for notability."? DES ^(talk) 13:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- JECompton Thanks so much, DES for adding that info! I wanted to know more about this beautiful song. JECompton (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has several references and Google book searches turned up several more.[1][2][3] The song is notable. The article has many problems (Return to Forever, not for, etc.), but should saved (I'll take a crack at it). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dlohcierekim 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hell of an improvement on the original stub. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been greatly expanded and referenced, and the song's notability is evidenced by the "Critical reception" section in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sugestion If nominator could withdraw the nomination, this could be closed sooner. Dlohcierekim 13:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the improvements and newly added sources. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirects at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mathematics of Love

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Can't find much beyond performance dates from google searches. bojo | talk 22:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also tried to find a reliable source for the subject. However I am not able to find anything "concreate." Reb1981 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Hannah Fry. The article is a theatre play written by Cherríe Moraga that ran for four days last year at Stanford. Other than reviews by the colleges' publications ([4] and [5]), I haven't been able to find any significant independent sources for this to meet WP:GNG. The author of the article @Tblightning8394: says as much in their edit summary:...Cherrie Moraga's newest un-published drama set to debut August 2017. The structure of the article also need work; the lead is a confused mix of plot, the character list lacks cast members and the rest of the article reads like a cross between WP:NOTESSAY and a WP:COATRACK.

My initial internet searches for "The Mathematics of Love" led me to a 2014 TEDx talk and book by Fry, which is far more notable by virtue of sourcing (Washington Post, stuff.co.nz, Livemint, etc) than this play, hence the retargeting. Fuebaey (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Lynn Foxx

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

Non significant award. And even if it counts, the subject patently fails gng so a technical sng pass should not get more weight than being an effectively unsourced blp. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant enough notabilityWiki Cell (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources online, Has won 1 significent award, Meets PORNBIO #1 and #2, and meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The working consensus from recent AfD debates is "Cream Dream" and other niche categories fall short on the significance part of the "well-known and significant industry award" test in PORNBIO. Other editors take it further: Technical PORNBIO pass - significant reliable sources = non notable. A raw Google search without naming the non-trivial, reliable hits is of little value. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award is not significant. The pornography industry intentionally spills out promotional material. We need to identify coverage outside of this promotional PR juggernaut to show notability and none is shown here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Burke

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

I dont believe that claims to have been romantically involved with hugh heffner are grounds to have a wikipedia article. Otherwise fails gng and pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator. Finnegas (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Turbo:_A_Power_Rangers_Movie#Soundtrack. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie Original Motion Picture Soundtrack

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

No sources cited since January 2007 (10 years); article contains only two sections and no "References" or "External links" sections. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - There is plenty of room in the main article of Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie and no reason to have a separate article for this. If no one objects in a couple of days I'll be WP:BOLD and just do it. - Pmedema (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - I have been WP:BOLD and merged this into the main article. Closing admin if you would like a #REDIRECT Turbo:_A_Power_Rangers_Movie#Soundtrack can be used instead of deleting. I don't like to do non-admin closures as I prefer other final opinions.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film)#Video games. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 video game)

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

There are 3 things wrong with this article:

No sources cited since August 2015.
The lead is somewhat poorly written.
All of the sections talk about who voices who in the game, which is unsourced and violates WP:GAMECRUFT. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IGN announcement, Polygon announcement, and I didn't see anything else in the WP:VGRS search. Redirect to the 2014 film, maybe? Game exists, and the title is not out of the realm of possibility. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, redirect to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film)#Video games. --Izno (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film)#Video games, as suggested by Izno. Games based on popular movie licenses tend to get little interest from either hardcore gamers or reliable sources, but they're still a likely search term for a general readership, I think. The article on the film also serves as a good spot for editors to add sourced info on the game should they come across any. Doubtful that we'll ever get enough reliably sourced content on the subject to justify a separate article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Halverson

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NHOCKEY. 0 registered starts in the NHL, only registered starts are with the AHL. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Gandrud

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

Autobiography of a politician who doesn't appear to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN criteria for inclusion. Sources I found appear to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Offices and elections—city council in Carpinteria, California, population 13,000; unsuccessful candidate for state legislature—don't satisfy criteria for automatic notability at WP:NPOL. "First openly gay member of California Republican Party Board of Directors" (in 2011) probably doesn't suffice; in a 2013 deletion discussion (in which I cast a losing !vote against deletion), consensus seemed to be that "first LGBT officeholder" was no longer sufficient to establish notability. Google and Google News searches turn up no substantial independent coverage; the best non-local item I could find was an Advocate article, cited in the article, which ran only three paragraphs. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving on the city council of a small city does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass, being an unelected candidate for election to the state legislature does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass, being the first out gay person to hold an otherwise non-notable political office (such as a small town city council or a state-level political party's board of directors) does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass — and the referencing here consists of three primary sources, three namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, and two articles which are about him but are mere blurbs in length, so the sourcing is nowhere near good enough to hand him a WP:GNG pass instead. And even if a person can be shown to properly clear a Wikipedia notability standard, he still doesn't get to start or write the article himself per our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written autobiography evidenced by language such as accusing opponents of "foot-dragging". No evidence of notability of this small town councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being on the city council of such a small city is not a sign of notability. Holding state party offices is not a sign of notability. Maybe if he was head of the state party, but not the offices he held. Being on the state recreational trails commission clearly not. Being a failed candidate for state legislature definiately not. So no claim to notability exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article indicates that he passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Fails WP:GNG.--Jersey92 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No real evidence of notability. There was a time when being an openly gay politician was notable, but now is a big yawn (which is a good thing). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe an openly gay Iranian or Saudi pol would be notable today, but definitely not in California.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP: NPOLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gifty Powers

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

Subject of article fails basic criteria for inclusion into the encylopedia most notably, WP:GNG and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources as most references look like announcements. This seems as though it is a case of WP:TOOSOON and i !vote a Strong Delete until she has been disscussed in popular and reliable press. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like a gossip column. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The article meets WP:GNG criteria and she is popularly known for the reality show Big Brother Nigeria 2017 just like Ebuka Obi-Uchendu and everyone who made it to the reality show over the years. She has also been discussed in reliable source, which includes Newspapers, Magazines and so on. So i believe the article may require assistant in improving the article and not deleting it. I Advice you make research on the topic "Gifty Powers" also.--Obari2Kay (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As observed by Comatmebro the only time the subject of your article is discussed, it is by gossip blogs and even at that, there is no in-depth coverage of her supposed career or 'fame', by those gossip blogs. Now @Obari2Kay you however, did magnify my interest in your article's subject when you mentioned she has been covered by reliable press, could you be so kind as to enlighten me and the rest of wikipedia by providing us with sources as to back up your claim of she possessing significant coverage in reliable sources? mind you, gossip blogs do not count as reliable sources, you better focus on WP:GNG so as to understand my arguement, the notability of your articles subject fails the aforementioned guideline woefully. my take is still a Strong delete also read up WP:NotJustYet , Happy Editing sir. Celestina007 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect - Sources and the article are all WP:FANCRUFT and not notable. Redirect to Big Brother Naija as a viable search term - Pmedema (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I somewhat but not completely disagree with Wikipedia’s decision to deem The Daily Mail not a reliable source. The articles I have read from The Daily Mail were all sound articles. Perhaps that is because I don’t read their celebrity material. So I can sympathize with Wikipedians who say The Daily Mail is not a reliable due to their celebrity/tabloid material. If you rule out The Daily Mail as a reliable source, then the article fails to meet WP:GNG because it has not received coverage in reliable sources. Gossipy sources, news aggregrators and the Daily Mail celebrity gossip type converage are not reliable sources. desmay (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Daily Mail it is a reliable source and it is also a notable print media as Vanguard (Nigeria). I strongly believe this article has more references, so i am going to dig deep to find them. All i ask for is 10 day's and nothing more to convince you it's meet WP:GNG.--Obari2Kay (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She hasn't been discussed in significant detail. The article is written in a promotional tone, and the content of the sources cited are gossip material at best. Being a participant in a reality show isn't enough to establish notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, being a participant at the BBN is not enough to establish notability. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNGWiki Cell (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Darreg (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altsoft Xml2PDF

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

I found no notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. I don't see that this is notable above the so many other available converter programs available. It hasn't made a historical difference as a product from a company, and the essay WP:NSOFT can help with this argument. - Pmedema (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. The componentsource.com EL has a 'buy it now' link so is not an independent review. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GenWorks

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

Promotional, and non-notable. The refs are mostly PR DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching only found sources that promote this company rather than mention it in relation to something else. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺13:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitling Fern

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

Hoax. No such plant known as "Fruitling Fern" or "Equisetopsidada". Some of the text is copied from Equisetopsida while the remainder is blatant nonsense. Plantdrew (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Surprisingly restrained approach there, actually, but blew it with the wrestling mud puppies at the end.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i have done nothing wrong! i found and cataloged this plant myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlantAss (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - tagged for speedy delete as hoax. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Layfield bullying and harassment allegations

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

I am pretty skeptical this article should exist. First, it appears to remove the context of the situation from his wider career, which I believe leads to this being an Attack page here. Yes, sources exist, but a whole article? The very title says "allegations"; really, an article on speculation? Second, I am doubtful that the sources rise to the kind of national interest level that would indicate this deserves such a lengthy article. I am seeing this as in breach of Wikipedia:Undue as much as my other issues. I think this needs to be re-merged with the John Layfield page. There appears to have been no real discussion of the splitting off of this content from the Layfield page on that page's talk page, so I think a fuller conversation needs to be had about the appropriateness of this page at the very least. In the end though, I'm just not sure this is notable enough independently from Layfield himself (who has his own page). Isingness (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of the article I just want to start of and say that I did not intend for this to be an attack on him or anyone else. I can agree that most of the content could be merged into his original article but I don't see how that makes it less of an attack or puts a bad light on him. The main reason I made it was becuse it was getting too big for to just be a section in his article, I brought it up with the wrestling project and I was meet with no resistence so I went ahead with it. I was kind of prepared for this to happen but I thought it was possible that the story would develop more in the future, since the issue seems to have been dropped mostly now since Ranallo signed an agrement with the company I feel like it's probbaly going to calm down. Another option which has also been brought up by other editors on the wrestling project is that it could be merged into an article by the name Hazing in WWE since many of the sources indicate this is a wider issue within the company. As for the "allegations" in the title I modeled it after the Bill Cosby article which has "allegations" in the article name, I figured it was the most appropriate name for it.★Trekker (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trekker, I do appreciate that generally the process is to spin off articles when the content becomes undue for the main page, and in most cases I would usually agree with this kind of article. I would also agree that Hazing in WWE would be an appropriate place for this too if the article is AFD'd with a merge consensus. I am by no means insinuating that you yourself did anything in the spirit of an attack; my concerns are about how we are addressing the content as policy. As regards Cosby, that was a case with a far higher level of public prominence (though I likely would have wanted a different title for that as well). One area we may differ, is in that I think the content about the topic in general is too extensive considering the limited amount of incidents discussed. In the end, I think in most other cases a merge discussion would be equally appropriate as an AFD to deal with that specific issue, excepting the concerns I raised above, which is why I chose to start an AFD instead. Isingness (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good. I feel like Hazing in professional wrestling would also be good because there may very well be a lot of cases of this kind of behaviour in many other wrestling companies (although this title might end up being a bit indiscriminate and wide) but the problem is that I feel like some of what is described in the currect article goes a bit beyond what would be concidered hazing, such as the Blackman incident (which also doesn't seem to have taken place in a lockerroom but in public), which is why I put harassment in the original title as well.★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The recent Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly harassment scandals at Fox News don't have their own articles and those saw the ouster of their CEO and top star. This is more comparable to the Bill Demott situation, but unlike that scandal this one turned out to be a bust. Much of the hoopla surrounded the Ranallo situation and he has since said his departure didn't have to do with Layfield. A paragraph on Ranallo speculation, including the Justin Roberts allegations that got clumped with it, and perhaps his quotes about hazing Miz, should be suffice on the main article. Other stuff, like the Blue Meanie incident should be included in the career section because it was worked into a storyline. Lots of the other stuff really have no place in an encyclopedia. I don't think there's enough here to rework into another separate article.LM2000 (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Styles, Edge, Blackman, Renee and Hardy's situations then? Or the fact that many have said that this is a recurring problem in the world of professional wrestling, something which is endorsed by higher ups and has been for a long time? The fact that this is very simalar to the DeMott situation (and has been compared to that by some sources here) just tells me that this something which could easily be a subject of an article like Hazing in WWE/professional wrestling.★Trekker (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we can use most of them. Some, like Blackman and Muhammad Hassan, are told through third party accounts. Others, like Edge, didn't describe it as "hazing" or "harassment"; the stories resurfaced after the Ranallo speculation and were brushed off by JBL as "locker room pranks" which have been known to the internet for years.LM2000 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also worry that creating one article about all scandals would violate WP:SYN.LM2000 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least in some cases should what Layfield believes it to be really matter when people like René Duprée clearly talk about what he claimed Layfield did to him as harassment? I also don't see how something being known for years but not largely acknowledged matters either. You know, I'm not upset that this separate article will more than likely be deleted but I am kind of disappointed that there has been a pushback at even acknowledging that this is has been reported as a reoccuring issue. As far as WWE go and not an individual level this is clearly being reported on by at least the Wrestling Observer and the Pro Wrestling Torch as being rooted in an old fashioned pro wrestling behaviour which dates back a long time and isn't receted by the higher ups.★Trekker (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Layfield's side of the story does matter per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Even the title Hazing in WWE is a NPOV-vio because there's dispute about what actually happened and to what extent and we cannot endorse one side and present every allegation as fact. As with Demott, we should describe the scandal, but it must be given WP:DUE weight, and unlike Demott JBL isn't getting fired for this. That's why I suggested mentioning just the allegations with the most weight from reliable sources (Ranallo and Roberts).LM2000 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But he openly admitted that he hazed people, like with the Miz. It's pretty clear that he simply doesn't think that that's a bad thing. As for only mentioning Ranallo and Roberts I refuse to agree with that, again, he openly admited to misteating Mizanin, and Dupree's accusations were also brought up by Paste for example, as were some others, the Styles incident for example has been reported repeatedly and seems to have had witnesses. The Hardy's examples were writen in their own WWE published book and describes Layfiled encuraging them to commit crimes. I don't see how excluding so many of the stories is apropriate at all. Again, this has been repeatedly reported as being a reoccuring issue, how is it good to just include the most recent examples then just becuse they sparked the debate? Would allegations of backstage mistreatment in WWE be a more appropriate title in that case, or would that be too broad and still POV?★Trekker (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the number of allegations to include on his article, and how much weight they should be given, is something that should be worked out on JBL's talk page; two was my recommendation based on my interpretation of the sources. I don't think a separate article is appropriate per what Isingness, 86.3.174 and myself have said, but if one exists it needs "allegations" somewhere in the title, like the current one. I also don't want to come across as a Layfield defender here, I always try to rework a controversy section (WP:CSECTION) when I see one and I've done it for articles across the political spectrum. Some controversies are notable and pass WP:10YT but are given WP:UNDUE weight, some are just WP:NOTNEWS, some are only covered by unreliable sources, etc. As you said in a response above, this issue is dropped and has calmed down. It got a few weeks worth of play in the press in JBL's 20+ years as a public figure and he is left largely unaffected by the scandal. Compare this to the the Cosby allegations article, which blew up in late 2014 and continues with Cosby going to court in July.LM2000 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have to worry LM2000 I don't think anyone will accuse you of being Layfield defender or anything like that, I for one respects you immensely and think you're a great unbiased editor, (and probbaly a lot more experienced than myself). I do take everything you say into accout and I see your points, I just find it very unfair that some accussation would get ignored becuse the source that reported on them aren't quite as reputable as some of the others and that a larger issue isn't being accnowleged in general. As many of the sources state, this is very well a overarching problem in the backstage enviroment of the professional wrestling business and I do think that could do for it's own article, either confined to a spesific company like WWE or just the industry in general.★Trekker (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your work, so I really don't like having to !vote this way. If the article is reshaped without enough changes I'm scared it'll come back to AfD again. I recently saw that the Kayfabe article was trimmed up nicely, an article on backstage politics in wrestling might compliment it nicely. Another idea is to create an article like National Football League controversies and National Basketball Association criticisms and controversies. I've often wondered why we don't have articles on the 1990s WWF scandals, that would be a good starting place for them and could hold some of this article if it's merged or deleted.LM2000 (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like the WWE criticisms and controversies or Criticism of WWE could be a great idea! It's funny that you brought up the 90s scandals since I recently made the redirect WWF sex and drug scandal with the intent of turning it into an article in the future. That stuff almost brought down the entire North American wrestling industry.★Trekker (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason for this type of article to exist. This seems to be another example, similar to Persona and reception of Roman Reigns, of the wrestling fandom taking things too far and attempting (in good faith) to promote and push their own views and agendas via Wikipedia because they are too invested in the product. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these sources are not from exclusively wrestling sources but of rather mainstream magazines so this is not just some fan agenda on my or anyone else's part.★Trekker (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't agree with the idea that particles like these have no reason to exist. If a controversy happens to be notable enough it is.★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course articles on controversies and notable subjects are warranted, but unfortunately there is a tendency for wrestling fans to want to validate their own opinions and version of events on Wikipedia. Yes, the content is sourced and the edits done in good faith but that doesn't change the situation here, which is that a bunch of people have added (sourced) content to support the widely-held opinion among wrestling fans that JBL is a bully. Which, whether it is true or not, is not WP:NPOV and not particularly encyclopedic content. Similar to the example of Reigns that I mentioned, which originally started because a bunch of people were adding sourced criticism to his career section, which I challenged and the consensus was to create a separate "persona and reception" section for that content, now that section has so much content that it was moved to its own article which is pretty much a week-by-week catalog of criticisms and negative fan reaction towards Reigns. Again, not really relevant or suitable for Wikipedia but people can't help themselves, and because the content is sourced, done in good faith and fits most editors' opinion then it's difficult to do anything to remove it. Not necessarily accusing you of this personally BTW, I know that you didn't add a lot of this content, it's just something that tends to happen.86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, I wasn't around when the Reigns split happened so I didn't that it was a recurring problem here. Either way it's pretty clear that consensus says that this article should not stay, can this be speed up by an admin or the like?★Trekker (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any way to speed up this deletion? I think most agree that it should not stay a separate article and that the content (if it should be kept) should be relocated.★Trekker (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any reliable sourced, encyclopedic material can be covered in the article on John Layfield. There is absolutely no reason to have a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as said above, this could easily all be covered in JBL's main article. TDOldSpice (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Maybe these allegations are notable, but the be allegations about this dude. Is he notable? If true, then this should be part of an article about him, or maybe something in an article about the WWE. Writting about allegations has a potential for libel so every claim must be really well backed up or deleted ASAP.--Pgapunk (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can be covered in the John Layfield article. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't a merge mean that? I mean this title would be a redirection to that section of the John Layfield article?--Pgapunk (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is the appropriateness of the title, so a redirect wouldn't solve that particular problem. Deletions don't mean this content can't go back to the JBL page though; I don't think anyone here is arguing that he isn't notable as one of the most prominent wrestlers of the last twenty years. Isingness (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto John Layfield for now, though I think making an article about Hazing in WWE or Hazing in professional wrestling could have legs if it covered more than just his incidents. Pinguinn 🐧 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navigator Records (Russia)

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

Relevance is not shown. Sources are not reliable. In Russian Wikipedia, the article is in two lines and is submitted for deletion. It seems like the PR itself.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I edited the article earlier and tried to clean it up, but I couldn't find any refs to support WP:GNG. It's also telling that the Russian project has only one good source (talking to the label's president http://www.rollingstone.ru/social/interview/15341.html), and they could easily use Russian-language sources. Seems to be a niche label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Prior to this relisting, this discussion wasn't transcluded on any AFD page. This has now been resolved, and it appears on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 26.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrija Matic

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

Author removed PROD. Fails WP:NHOOPS. bojo | talk 19:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very simple, it fails WP:NBASKETBALL. - Pmedema (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of notability guidelines for basketball players. We cannot build such articles around only the webpage of the university the subject attends. This would lead to creating articles on not just every college basketball and football palyer, which we are not prepared to do, but also probably almsot every track, volleyball, swimmer and other sports as well. This is not "Wikipedia of college athletes". I cringe at the mess this would create.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Potential COI, the user who created this article is User:Andrija19961 and may be the player himself. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Paquin

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

Author removed PROD. Fails WP:NHOOPS. bojo | talk 19:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting any notability criterion. —swpb^T 18:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indendent sources. We can not have articles on collegiate sportspeople based only on the website of their college.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH. South Nashua (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Rivera

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

Author removed PROD. Fails WP:NHOOPS. bojo | talk 19:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part of a series of articles either created by a fellow player at American University, or by someone who is a very strong fan. None of these show these players come anywhere near meeting notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (✉) 18:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 18:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It was a Important Air Surveilance System for decades, when it was new it was one of the modernst Air surveilance systems but it was also one of the air suveilance systems who stayed very long in active service and paved the way for the today system. "Fails GNG" is just a cover argument for The Banners constant hunt on me and articels i worked on. The number of from The banner nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and draves a clear picture... Very interesting is that ther is now a long line of AfD s from against articels from me..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written and with ample sources. A national air defense system is notable - if it is covered in RS - and here it is.Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links and YouTube are reliable sources? The Banner talk 19:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The Banner are you unable to use googel? And blind to see this?
    - Alber Wüst: Die Schweizerische Fliegerabwehr. 2011,ISBN 978-3-905616-20-0
    - Uno Zero Zero – Ein Jahrhundert Schweizer Luftwaffe. Aeropublications, Teufen/ZH 2013,ISBN 978-3-9524239-0-5
    - Louis Geiger, Franz Betschon| Erinnerungen an die Armee 61. Huber Frauenfeld 2014,ISBN 978-3-7193-1513-9
    - Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Hubacher und der Maulwurf
    - Flinte, das Internet der Luftwaffe. Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift ASMZ, Heft 6, Band 163, 1997 FFA P-16 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Constructively - Some of the links are dead FFA P-16 - I suggest you update to stable link or archive them. I was able to reach some of them via google - e.g. [6] which 404s via google on title goes to [7]. In contrast I wasn't able to find "Übersicht Radarsysteme der Schweizer Luftfahrt" easily - it's also dead. Some of the titles should also be fixed (particularly giving context to the youtube) On the other hand - User:The Banner - while youtube in itself isn't reliable, if what is shown there is an historical film - then it probably is something. And just because a link is dead - doesn't mean there is no source. And I bet you didn't chase down the book references (I didn't).Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - just quick search brings up plenty of additional sources - books - [8] shows several pages of relevant English language mentions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FFA P-16: These might be good for incorporation in the article: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. This is from a quick search + filtering for English language sources - but you need to try and get the full source (google-books is great for finding stuff (and shows up nice in text preview) - but for stuff from the last century with copyright - you often have to get the book itself.Icewhiz (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are quite a few sources on this topic, and the nomination statement does not set out any problems with them that might mean that they don't satisfy the notability criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: Well sourced and notable. I will work on improving the article, especially the referencing, in the next week or so. FFA P-16 should bring his concerns about this being a bad-faith nomination to WP:ANI. This is not the place to discuss them. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Nygård

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsouced biography of a living person. Nothing in the article suggests Nygard would pass any academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Only possibility of passing WP:Prof is citations on GS, and these are small. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Nasir Mehmood

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

Another personal biography. Nothing establishes that he is notable. GreenCricket (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional bio created along with Faisal Sanitary Fitting. Not a notable figure. --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pakistani businessman, CEO and chairman of a non-notable company. I can find no significant coverage of him in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Sanitary Fitting

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

A local company with no notable source available. GreenCricket (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear violations of our WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost policy. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG as I could find no significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Could have been speedy deleted. I tried to edit the article to strip away puffery and irrelevant details and I was left with a modified opening sentence.... -- HighKing⁺⁺13:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira Martin

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

This person's greatest achievement is winning one national beauty contest, although I cannot find clear guidance on this I do not believe this makes her notable. PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. Significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My reasoning for creating the article was simply because she had appeared on the August 2016 Deaths page as a red link. Unless the Recent Deaths page is now including non-notable people, it should be kept. Silent sovereign (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither winning a pagent or dying should merit a wikipedia page. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion not based on policies or guidelines. Consider WP:GNG which she passes, easily. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her "greatest achievement" was not winning a beauty pageant, nor dying, but deploying the celebrity therefrom to advocate for assistance and research of the plight of those afflicted with a disease that is mostly inherited by Black people (thereby disproportionately afflicting those with less resources and access to care than is typical of chronic disease-sufferers in the First World, and eliciting less largesse for research and relief for the same reasons). Her looks made her, literally, a more attractive and more effective spokesperson for this charitable cause. Her death as a victim of the disease, ironically, also raises sickle cell anemia's profile and enhances her efficacy posthumously. That she has garnered less First World press than reflects the celebrity as a positive role model she enjoyed among Blacks is to be expected (I first heard of her on a rap radio station). She's been dead less than a year: Give her reputation the time and opportunity to reverberate that it deserves. FactStraight (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon My Planet

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

No assertion of notability. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article here mentions that Pardon My Planet runs in about 200 print newspapers. The main cartoon source at Comics Kingdom states it as "more than" 130 papers. Is there some accepted threshold for notability? — Loadmaster (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is the threshold. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could only find trivial mentions. It does seem odd because this comic strip is published in more than 150 newspapers, including major ones. That isn't enough for Wikipedia notability. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. It does seem odd that it couldn't pass, but if it does, it would have already. South Nashua (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Seems like a lot of blogs write about this webcomic, but no reliable sources do, at all. There's no sources to use to write this article with, so per notability guidelines, it should be deleted. ~Mable (chat) 08:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Córdoba

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

Subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NOLY (qualifying for the team isn't enough) and WP:NGYMNAST (won no medals; participating isn't enough) Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the Olympics, in multiple events, per source 1, so easily meeting WP:NOLY. And won a gold medal at the Pan Am Games too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olympians are always given the presumption of being notable, especially when from non-English speaking countries. Every other athlete he competed with at the Olympics has an article. It's not that he just qualified for the team - he competed. The term qualification appears to be to determine qualifying to the finals - appears to be no different than heats or preliminary round in other sports. Just how you slash the field in multiple rounds. RonSigPi (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS, which states:

Athletes do not have to qualify for the finals or win medals to meet this guideline. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHY MARS IS RED ?

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

No subject, just random facts that are probably already stated in Mars lovkal (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WON2

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

I looked at this article to try to make the references inline, after the creator deleted the 'bitch tag' from the article and put it on the talk page. The sources given in the bottom section are all primary however, and I was unable to find reliable sources for the article. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#WON2, where the comments further confirmed my concern about this article's notability. After a couple of hours of searching, I can't find any proof of this meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 17:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple WP:VG members couldn't find sourcing, nor is it present at the article, so I doubt it meets the WP:GNG. Willing to reconsider if someone finds some reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Death of Marilyn Monroe. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice R. Murray

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

Eunice Murray was notable for only one thing: being Marilyn Monroe's last housekeeper, who was the first to notice that something was wrong with her on the night she died. She has become a part of the conspiracy theories surrounding Monroe's death, but otherwise has no notability. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I spent some time looking at this article recently and found much more material than expected about Murray and her relationships with Monroe and with Monroe's famous psychiatrist, Ralph Greenson. I don't think a straight deletion of the content in this article would be appropriate, nor would it be helpful to those interested in Monroe, or in Dr. Greenson for that matter. On the other hand, I think a reasonable case can be made for a merge and redirect to Death of Marilyn Monroe. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read extensively on Monroe (spent several months in 2015 getting the article to FA status), and came across nothing from reputable sources that would make Murray notable on her own. Yes, she features somewhat prominently in the conspiracy theories (which are pretty ridiculous when you take a closer look at them), but that is not a reason for her to have a standalone article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows that Murray is indepdently notable enough to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Leduc (Quebec politician)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a mayor. While the city is large enough that he would be able to keep an article that was properly sourced to media coverage about his term as mayor, it's not large enough to earn him a presumption of notability on the basis of sourcing as weak as what we have here: one primary source profile on the city's own website, and one (deadlinked) raw table of the election results themselves. And even on a Google News search, all I can find is one WP:BLP1E blip about him accusing another politician of defamation, and a bunch of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and people otherwise. This simply isn't enough to satisfy a notability criterion for which success or failure hinges on clearing WP:GNG on the sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In June 2016 the CBC reported, "The City of Brossard has faced intense media scrutiny lately", citing some controversies in Leduc's administration. [22] At present he seems to be in the middle of continuing controversy about the city's plastic bag ban, with Leduc in the crosshairs of attacks by the Retail Council of Canada and the plastic bag industry ("the Mayor of Brossard, Mr. Paul Leduc, persisted in his obstinacy and refusal to have any discussion with stakeholders and adopted a bylaw prohibiting the distribution of plastic shopping bags."[23]; "The Mayor of Brossard Knows Best? Paul Leduc Ignores Facts, Pushes His Political Agenda"[24]), but in the independent news coverage about this issue I didn't find much that focuses on Leduc. As things stand, the case for notability strikes me as marginal, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else can turn up more, especially if they can make a more effective search for French-language sources than I was able to do. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article can't be improved if not there. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for an article to be kept in and of itself — it has to be proven that improvement is definitively possible on the basis of hard proof that the necessary depth of sourcing to meet GNG unconditionally exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not enough to just assert that improvement could eventually become possible maybe who knows anything could happen someday yadda yadda — you've got to show that improvability is already a foregone conclusion today, because a significant number of viable sources already exists today. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small town mayor with minor/routine coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I've looked at the sources mentioned above and searched. If better sources are found I will reconsider. Gab4gab (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage of him and not a significant enough position to justify an article. Media coverage on actions of the city of Brossard should lead to more information in the article on Brossard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Simon (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, in a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. This literally just states that she exists, and sources the fact to a single piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of the results on election night, with no evidence of anywhere near enough substantive coverage about her to get her past the "who have received significant press coverage" condition in our inclusion criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quick Google search turns up a few items of potential interest, especially "Chateauguay mayor celebrated as hero for turning down bribe" and a bunch of related stories in both English and French. More investigation could be warranted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of places of less than 50,000 are almost never notable, and no reason is shown that Simon would be an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Color-blind casting. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwashing in film

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

Contested redirect: per Chive Fungi, 'This content can be a section within Color-blind casting. There's not enough reliable sources talking about this for there to be an article.' A WP:BEFORE indicates that what sources there are are mostly unreliable (blogs and zines), with the occasional RS using the phrase in passing (often in any case in a different conetext to films) and subjecting it to insufficient cooverage on its own merits to demonstrate WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENT coverage. Using the word will satisfy WP:WIKTIONARY, but not WP. Fails WP:GNG. Support suggestion made to redirect to Colour-blind casting, if the sources can be much improved. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per ChiveFungi and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Funcrunch (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Yes, there isn't enough usage, enough of a phenomenon, for an article. The term has been raised around a couple of casting choices, that of "Annie" and Mary Jane in Spiderman, but it falls short of GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Color-blind casting or delete. Per ChiveFungi not enough sources exist for this to pass notability guidelines. Sro23 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. This was created last January, and I proposed it for deletion with the following rationale: "Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG, also WP:CONTENTFORK problems with Color-blind casting, and WP:SPA concerns with the article creator raised at Talk:Whitewashing in film." Salt if necessary to avoid a third article creation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Javed Khan

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

Not really notable and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article has so far attracted only promotional editors. Capitals00 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was created by me but I do agree it doesn't pass the criteria on politicians therefore delete. --Saqib (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i created this bio after I realised he should warrant an entry because he was often quoted in the news but for sure he don't pass the criteria at WP:Politician. --Saqib (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree per nom. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 11:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a low level party PR person is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Anagwu

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

subject fails WP:PROF and WP:BASIC as nothing substantial could be found about the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As observed by nominator @Oluwa2Chainz the subject of our discussion fails WP:PROF & in my opinion doesnt merit inclusion into the encylopedia.Celestina007 »» (talk to me) 20:38, 28 April 2017
Delete This is an unsourced article on a living person. Beyond that, none of the statements in the article would lead to him coming even close to meeting the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof. "He has authored many books and international journal papers.": No sign of them on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:PROF. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pizo

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

Possible hoax? Can't find much about them or match them conclusively to one of the redlinked players at 1903–04 FC Barcelona season. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried and I can't find anything, partially because there is no first name. Only Pizo in relation to FC Barcelona I come up with is Pizo Gómez who is definitely not the person described in this article. I've searched through several news archives as well. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried to locate sourcing, and can't find anything. Possible WP:HOAX, but definite WP:GNG and WP:V fail. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he really played that many full internationals and also for Barcelona, then he would at least have some mentions in reliable sources Spiderone 09:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, likely hoax. Giant Snowman 10:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. This is a clear hoax. Among many issues, there's no evidence that the subject made 60 appearances for Uruguay; the RSSSF listing on Uruguay's international appearances includes no such player. Any player with this kind of a career for FC Barcelona or Uruguay would generate a large number of substantial records in reliable sources. And, finally, there's one more glaring error - the subject couldn't have won the Spanish league because it wasn't founded until 1929. Calamondin12 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above comments, would possibly recommend speedy as well per WP:HOAX and WP:SNOW. Seems to be a hoax or a fake, and I truly doubt that any such player named Pizo existed that appeared for both Uruguay and Barcelona without any coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as a hoax. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Nick

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

Cross-wiki fake. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia as cross-wiki fake. All articles in all languages are written by the same user. References or do not contain any mention of this notorious "George Nick", or fake sources (that is fake from Vatikan official). Advanced search in the Vatican official site - They do not know such a person. TenBaseT (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Cranes Recordings

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

Promotional article about a company that does not meet WP:GNG. Speedy deletion previously declined, although I do think it would qualify for a G11 speedy. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is non-notable. I was unable to find any sourcing online. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the self promotion there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources at this time so WP:GNG is not passed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a vehicle for self-produced music from one artist, who has a history of promotion on Wikipedia. Blackguard 17:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This really should have disappeared under A7. A "prominent" (not) musician creates his own label on which he is the only artist, and then there's nothing to say about the label that's of any significance. A quick Google search shows that it's a slam dunk that this fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Largoplazo (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Microsoft Surface#Accessories. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Accessories

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

This article fulfils the criteria for a speedy deletion on G11 grounds. There is no context, no introduction, no categories, and the only references are the manufacturer's advert and a minor review of the product. There is no salvageable content; this is merely a list of accessories for a product that is not even named - plus the content is duplicated in a decent article at Microsoft Surface. Unfortunately speedy deletion has not been allowed because two people voted to keep it in the deletion discussion a year ago. Deb (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Microsoft Surface#Accessories. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as above -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Drobinski

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

Non-notable lawyer, unsuccesful (unelected) politicians. Fails WP:BIO. Passing coverage. "It has been widely speculated that Drobinski will seek election once again" sourced to 404 "Friends for Rod Drobinski" page and [25] which doesn't seem to mention him at all. PS. Ping User:DGG who prodded it originally. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable unelected politician who fails WP:NPOL. Also fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for political office is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides his candidacy, then he has to win the election to get a Wikipedia article because election per se — and campaign coverage itself does not get him over WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NPOL, because every candidate in any election could always show some degree of campaign coverage and thus it falls under WP:ROUTINE. But this makes and sources no credible claim that Drobinski had any preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article independent of his candidacy. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if he wins a future election and becomes an actual officeholder as a result, but nothing here entitles him to an article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable as politician nor otherwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed political candidates are just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Object I added his background as a prominent Assistant State's Attorney. Gained significant notoriety for role as prosecutor prior to being a politician. . Illinoiswiki10 (talk) 20:432, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Illinoiswiki10: I have reviewed the source you've added ([26]). [27] appears to quote him briefly in the context of one of his investigations. This stuff is routine coverage, and does not suffice to make him notable. If the piece had been about him, about why he is special/important/notable, then you'd have a better argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Aussie Pickers. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Callaghan

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

as per WP:BLP1E. he is only really notable for appearing on one TV show. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or alternatively redirect to Aussie Pickers -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aussie Pickers to create a section of pickers' biographies (there's not much here but a couple of sentences could be moved). He is cited as a media expert in antiques[28] and there is some discussion of his career beyond the show in the references, so it's not impossible to make a case for independent notability, but most press coverage is still focused on the show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuomo Town

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

Subject fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. The article presents only one source of questionable reliability and no clear claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND/ MarnetteD|Talk 14:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is poorly written, but this village/town is verifiable and better sources exist ([29] [30] to name just a couple). Searching for Tuomo Delta Nigeria is much more productive then Tuomo Town. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a town. --do ncr am 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a populated town or village; it's verifiable. Yes, the article could do with a bit of polish, but there is nothing that makes a rural Nigerian village inherently less notable than a rural British or Canadian or US village. Bad-patches (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Towns satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Also, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015–2016 Iowa Wrestling Team

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

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

A pair of relatively non-notable seasons for the Iowa Wrestling Team. The only really significant detail I can find is the "filling a football field" trivia, but that could easily be a one-sentence mention on the main article. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't decide how to vote at this time. When I look at the criteria at WP:NSEASONS I can argue both sides. The fact that the team finished second and fifth in the NCAA championships argues for inclusion as "post-season appearances" as does the number of NCAA wrestling championships (23 for Iowa) won ("For programs considered elite in a sport ...many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome". On the other hand, the arguments for deletion include "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players" and this article has little prose and the sources are lists of results (routine sports reporting). In addition, college wrestling is not on the same level in terms of coverage or general interest as sports such as football or basketball. Papaursa (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator Shirt58 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luerhmen History and Culture Museum

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

fails WP:ORG. could only find 1 gnews hit for its name in Chinese. if someone can find significant coverage in Chinese, I will reconsider. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage after multiple searches. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. It includes a major temple which does not have a separate article. This is the Luermen Matzu Temple. Look at the pictures. Try alternate spellings, e.g. the Luerhmen Mazu Temple. It is notable. --do ncr am 21:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. I'm not sure the standards applied to a corporation etc. should be applied to a museum, which is more of a history-thing than an organization-thing... Assuming their website is truthful, "The museum has a rich collection of artifacts from Zheng Chenggong’s time, such as weapons, armor, and books including a map of Taiwan that was made starting in 1703 and completed in 1722" in addition to including the temple and also a historical house. It there was a similar-size museum in Virginia we would probably keep it. Granted, its not well ref'd and according to the nominator can't be. But we should give a little leeway maybe for museums in non-English countries; they are going to harder to source naturally, but are possibly still worthwhile. Herostratus (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've heavily expanded the article, the museum is listed in the Ministry of Culture website of Taiwan (Republic of China), listed in the local gov Tainan City Government website, found coverage of the temple in online news (Focus Taiwan - 2 sources & Taiwan News - 1 source), and it is about Koxinga (Zheng Chenggong) a very famous figure in East Asia. The article is heavily linked to other articles as well. Chongkian (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International High School of New Orleans

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG PriceDL (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PriceDL, what attempt have you made to findsources according to WP:BEFIORE? DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG I have done both general and news specific google searches. Pretty much all the news articles seem to me to be local news, failing WP:AUD. The sources which may be regional apear to be about employment issues and therefore I consider to fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Overall I don't really see any opportunity for the growth of this stub through the use of independent sources. Happy to be proven wrong if someone can actually expand it appropriately PriceDL (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is sufficient documentation even in local news that it exists, consensus remains that all such high schools are to be considered notable. It's a purely empirical decision to avoid thousands of discussions that will at best lead to the inconsistent removal of a few percent of the articles, depending on how many people show up to defend them. That's what it was like before we agreed to consider them as notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do you have a link to this guidance? WP:NSCHOOL states they should meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, which I don't believe they do. Additionally, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that current concensus is that the historical deletion rate of nominated high schools is not an argument to keep future high schools. PriceDL (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is currently a one-sentence unsourced article, and (especially in view of the recent RfC) I can acknowledge the argument that a ministub like this isn't ready for the mainspace. On the other hand, this is a highly rated charter high school—for example, one of only two schools in Louisiana to show up in Newsweek's "Beating the Odds" ratings in 2015 [31][32] and in its "best IB schools ratings in 2017 [33]. It is highly likely that an article could be written to meet current standards for high school articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I spent 5 minutes on the article. Obvious keep.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I read the recent RFC, more time wasted over nothing. If an article on a U.S. high school is one sentence, you can make the world better by expanding it, very easily, in 99 out of 100 cases.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a high school that exists, per wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES i think is the link. There recently was a silly RFC or silly closure of an RFC that attempted to reverse good tradition/practice of keeping secondary schools; the RFC should be entirely disregarded. --do ncr am 21:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

disregard community consensus? that's not how Wikipedia works. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that rfc concluded nothing of value.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Sheardown

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

Doesn't appear to be notable outside of Canadian Caper. Not enough information can be found to justify his own article. Don't believe the information that is here (e.g. date of birth, additional spouse) justifies merging. Was previously a redirect to Canadian Caper but was recently made its own page, so would prefer some concencus instead of boldly performing a redirect. PriceDL (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituaries in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Guardian, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail convince me that my original redirect was not the right choice. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those sources suggest to me that he be treated under the guidelines of WP:1E, and also that his role in the event is insufficient to warrant its own article, as per WP:1E. PriceDL (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1E states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." You could argue about whether the event was highly significant, but his role in it definitely was. All those obits indicate others think so too. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The obituaries provided by Clarityfiend from international newspapers demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Clarityfiend quoted WP:1E, which says, ""If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I agree that Canadian Caper and the Iran hostage crisis are high significant and that John Sheardown's role within them was "a large one".
Cunard (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- in addition to sufficient coverage, "John Sheardown, Mary Catherine O'Flaherty, Roger Lucy, and Laverna Dollimore were all made Members of the Order of Canada", which is a significant national order (link to Gbooks previews. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhas Chatterjee

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

Unknown and unremarkable retired civil servant Uncletomwood (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has way too many unsourced statements, too much POV pushing language, and no where demonstates that his role in government or as an activist was actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Bhatia

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

Unknown retired bureaucrat Uncletomwood (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not even sure the party he is head of is notable. However being head of a minor political party with little to no success in elections is not a sign of default notability. His failed run for public office in 2004 is also not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara Taylor

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

Fails WP:BIO. The organisation where she is political director may be notable, but the sources added to the article (after I prodded it) are again not about her, but about the organisation, where she is giving comments as a kind of spokesperson for the organisation. There has been no significant independent attention for her as a person, only for the organisation she is part of. Fram (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG simplest standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign that the article passes GNG with significant sources. Also the article lacks an encyclopedia tone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I'm guessing this was meant for WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tronjheim

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

and... Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number One (Star Trek)

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

A minor Star Trek character, this page is mostly an unreferenced collection of trivial and speculation. Since ST literature is extensive, there are few sources mentioning her in passing, but I don't think they suffice for stand-alone notability; at best I'd recommend a merge to The Cage (Star Trek: The Original Series), if deletion is not the preferred outcome. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Covered adequately in the Majel Barrett and The Cage (Star Trek: The Original Series) articles. There's very little sourced content here so I'm not convinced a merge anywhere is merited. --Michig (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, striking my Delete, but unless it can be expanded with properly sourced encyclopedic information beyond what is (and could be) included in the two articles I identified, it shouldn't be kept indefinitely. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to The Cage. I personally think the character, having appeared in the pilot episode of the successful Star Trek franchise, would have notability attached even if the character had not subsequently appeared in other media forms.

There are numerous works that break down 'The Cage' and other bits of Star Trek from anthropological standpoints, pop culture standpoints, psychology. Trekkies like to wax poetic about the subject, and a number of Trekkies are notable enough to get their rantings published. As 'Number One' is one of those Star Trek mysteries, I'm certain I can dig up something that mentions the character in more than just passing. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep GNG met, commentary notes in article that character had to be removed from the show due to then-current sexism. Sufficient commentary on the real world impact of a fictional character is the best of all reasons to keep a fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Some examples: Gender, Science Fiction Television, and the American Security State, Integrating Women into the Astronaut Corps: Politics and Logistics at NASA, Star Trek: A Hidden History, "Star Trek" in the 1960s: Liberal-Humanism and the Production of Race, Political Science Fiction, Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry’s “Vision of the Future”: The Creation of an Early Television Auteur, Music, Race, and Gender in the Original Series of Star Trek (1966-69). I think that's MORE than enough, and I think I shall now proceed to WP:TROUT the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sexism discussion is promising, but this makes here ONEEVENT/ONEDIMENSION type of character. I still don't see why this cannot be merged into the episode discussion. But if you could try to rewrite it, removing the fan cruft like the Star Trek: New Frontier new section, and adding content from sources you found (sadly, most of them I cannot access; only the discussion in the first source seems in-depth, through I AGF this may also happen in some that I couldn't access), we could save this article? PS. I was thinking more about this, and I am really close to withdrawing this, but I am really not sure if there is that much we can write about her; I have tried accessing the sources through my university account. The first two book publications overlap but do provide a 1-2 page discussion on how her character was rejected due to sexism. "Star Trek: A Hidden History" doesn't seem to mention her (but I cannot even get a preview, just search query result). The coverage in [34] seems to be limited to 2 sentences on page 7, which summarize what is discussed in several paragraphs [35] coverage is also about as short. [36] seems to again overlap with the first two sources. [37] also discusses the same facts that other articles have established. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. After further thought, I think the sources found by Jclemens are sufficient to show that the character has received coverage and analysis that go beyond in-universe plot summaries (analysis of her character particularly in the context of sexism that caused her to be written out of the show).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Michig if you want to strike your delete opinion this can close per WP:SK #1, otherwise it continues. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep has certain prominence outside of fictional universe. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 among most comments that both NCYC and GNG are met. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Brylowski

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. While it passes WP:NSPORT/WP:NCYC, note that NSPORT clearly states that the subject has to meet GNG, meeting NSPORT is just indicative they are more likely to do so, so we should search for sources (WP:BEFORE): "Q: 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? A: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline." Well, I don't see anything except few stats - this individual has nothing going on for him. Middling performance at one relatively high level event (but not Olympics), so he doesn't even qualify for saying that he represented his nation at the top event (because top is Olympics). And for anyone interested in splitting hair about whether top can include more than one competition, it doesn't matter: unless it can be shown he meets GNG, he is simply not notable. NCYC cannot overrrule GNG/BIO, so please abstain from keep votes based solely on rationale "meets NCYC" - it is simply invalid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has completed at the 2010 UCI Track Cycling World Championships, therefore meeting WP:NCYC. And he's a two-time national champion to boot. More bad-faith WP:POINTY disruption following this AfD by the same nom. Keep this up and a topic-ban will be coming your way. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced all that and found an interview with the man. Bam. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: First, please remove or refactor your comments on bad faith and topic bans, they are not conductive to a friendly discussion, and are in violation of WP:AGF/WP:NPA policies. Now, did you see the part about NCYC not superseding GNG? The interview on a niche Polish cycling website is not even a proper interview, it is a single lengthy quote from him. The other paragraphs there is a quote from his team leader, and a simple summary of his career. Interviews are not considered quality sources per problems WP:INTERVIEW. Winning some non-notable, local, niche events does not help him meet GNG (or NCYC, even). Playing the devil's advocate (I'd be happy if we can prove he is notable, I am not a deletionist) the Polish article (in the paragraph describing his career) does mention his team set a Polish record for 4 km team, and he got 2 silver medals in team competitions, but again, those don't seem to help him meet the said policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has competed at a UCI event, therefore meeting WP:NCYC. How many more times? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: How many times before you notice that at the top of NCYC (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)) there is a section that reads: "Q: 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? A: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline." Meeting NCYC is not sufficient for an article to remain on Wikipedia. Meeting GNG is the necessary element here. Would you like to explain how the subject meets GNG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has competed at a UCI event, therefore meeting WP:NCYC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Let me speak plainly: meeting NCYC is irrelevant. How does the subject meet GNG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has competed at a UCI event, therefore meeting WP:NCYC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a very quick google turned up this interview, which seemed reasonably in-depth including how he got into cycling etc.XyZAn (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XyZAn: Good find, but I will note that this is a regional, not national, newspaper (Dziennik Bałtycki), and GNG prefers coverage that is not so limited; further, per WP:INTERVIEW, this is just a list of questions with his answers, there is no journalistic commentary nor any indication that the material was selected in some way. This is pretty much his self-published life story that regional newspaper picked up. Good find, yes, but IMHO still on the wrong side of WP:BIO requirements. Now, I usually deal with artists and businesspeople at AfD, not sportspeople, but building a biography on two low-profile interviews would not save those articles, and I do not think sportspeople should get any preferential treatment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using WP:INTERVIEW to try and undermine sources. Take a look at that page you've linked to. Esp. this bit right at the top: "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to locate coverage that I believe meets the GNG (not linking it as I see someone already has) but I feel it's important to point out that WP:NCYC does not supersede WP:GNG and anyone who thinks it does is just wrong. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to more sourcing. I dont feel GNG is met by a couple of regional interviews. Its routine coverage. (Before accusations of bias, I rescued Tre Whyte from the SvG purge, and that has *less* sourcing currently, but has the bonus of the subject being the British National Champion.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: I might be missing your point, so apologies if I do/have but your argument seems to defeat itself... You comment that Tre Whyte is notable through the fact that he was British National champion in BMX, where as Brylowski has been national champion in both the Team Pursuit and Madison... So are you saying that Whyte is more notable because he was a British NC (versus Polish) or because it was in BMX (versus Track cycling) and it has less sourcing. So based on your logic, Brylowski has more NC's and more/better sourcing? XyZAn (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note This piece was what tipped it over the edge for me, along with the information about a national record that he set. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Exemplo347: This is exactly a copy-paste/repost of [38]. Which, btw, I haven't noticed before but is signed on that page as 'Informacja prasowa', which is Polish for press release. Press releases are not accepted as reliable, independent sources for other articles and I again don't think we should make exceptions for sportspeople. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite obviously and verifiably notable elite cyclist. Perhaps those wanting to delete this could explain how they feel that would improve the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To reply in the same format: quite obviously, removing a spam-like entry on minor, non-notable cyclist is in line with Wikipedia not becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't appear to understand the meaning of either spam or indiscriminate. --Michig (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Can we stop with the point-y nominations, please? The AfD you cited was closed incorrectly in the opinion of myself and many others and nominator is being very disruptive with these nominations. Meets WP:NCYC. End of story. Smartyllama (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Verma Rajput

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

Reason

Non notable actor with no mention about him on any search engine. HelloDolly89 (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HelloDolly89 (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON at best, no coverage beyond a sentence or two and film stat sites. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Piotrus and also, notability is not inherited. Also, not sure what does this reference has anything to do with the subject. TopCipher (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TopCipher (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TopCipher (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. TopCipher (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted here are links http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7917282/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5457772/fullcredits/ http://www.filmihood.com/movies/sarrainodu-2016-telugu-movie/ https://www.cinemaclock.com/movies/sarrainodu-2016 http://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/english/apherald-epaper-apherald/sarrainodu+telugu+movie+review+rating-newsid-52356406 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.213.198.142 (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention any where. Just a supporting character in one movie he worked. Kvs90bc (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Updated article with references. SPMTelugu (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The provided sources show that the movie he was in is eminently notable, but there's nothing there to show that he is notable. I found nothing better. Article creator's comment above was originally inserted in place of the discussion template--I've also reverted the creator's poorly-executed attempt to prematurely close the discussion. --Finngall ^talk 01:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This popped at WP:BADAFD due to the author removing the AFD tags... so now I'm looking at it. And on the merits, there's no indication of notability under our rules. But the actor is fairly young, so maybe WP:USUAL applies and they get an article when they meet our criteria. But not yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. "notability is not inherited" -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuadricsRms

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

Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence provided or found to indicate that this software attained notability. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrinity: Member's Best Selections

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

I found no reliable sources writing about this album. SL93 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An unnotable compilation album. I would be okay with a possible redirect but it does not seem like it would be a common search term.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campion Platt

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. Article is poorly referenced with mostly primary sources and/or dead links. Searching does turn up some coverage, such as short interviews. Nothing I would really consider in-depth and independent. MB 05:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources here do not establish notability. I looked into the article on his wife, which has existed for over 10 years and is still considered to have inadequate sources for a biography of a living person, and nominated it for deletion. There is more information I found on Platt, but not much to establish notability. This [39] name checks him, but in the one paragraph where he and his wife are mentioned, only says anything really about his wife, and I don't think that is even indepth enough to show he is notable, it is even less for him. I found a Dan's Papers article on their house, but Dan's Papers is hardly a reliable source, it has perpetuated hoaxes at times. I doubt this is a hoax, but it is hard to accept papers that through a combination of shoddy editing and deliberate misleading perpetuate hoaxes as reliable. Then there were a few articles mentioning him 2 years ago in connection with an alleged crime on the roof of his penthouse by a friend of his then 19-year-old son. Those are excluded somewhere between Wikipedia:Notnews and Wikipedia:Nottabloid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Kesse (Blogger)

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

Self created autobiography - has previously been speedily deleted so I am nominating for AfD and suggest salting. All the references provided are self published, suggesting use of wikipedia for self promotion. Melcous (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional autobiography. Not every blogger is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Also, claims made in the article is not fully backed by the references cited. Ex: the 3rd reference about NK Foundation and would neither be considered as reliable as they would be via primary sources. TopCipher (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A primary sourced promotional autobiography. Notability is not inherited from birthday messages, nor gained from what one says about oneself. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a purely promotional bio that fails both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Cannot really pass WP:JOURNALIST or any other either. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage needed for notability. Searching found his blog material and some articles where he is quoted. Gab4gab (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy F. Behin

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

Really close to an A7, would be comfortable with a speedy but giving others a chance to chime in. Did not compete in the olympics, most notable accomplishment appears to be that he is a doctor that owns a gymnastics studio, and finished last in an amateur competition 20 years ago. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete promo for a coach. What refs there are, are SPS spammy refs. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources out there fall short of WP:GNG. Kurykh (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Neufeld

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

WP:BLP of a book illustrator, whose only apparent claim of notability per WP:CREATIVE is that she and her work exist -- and the only reference present is a Q&A interview on a blog, which is not the substantive coverage in reliable sources that it takes to clear WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if her notability and sourceability improve, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already deleted as copyvio from that very source: This suggests the nom is correct in their assesment of the narrow breadth of sources there are on this subject. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move and merge to God Loves Hair, which if it can be shown as notable, seems to have quite a bit of coverage also including Neufeld. None of it, however, seems to focuses predominantly on Neufeld. [40] [41] [42] and short mentions of her other works: [43] [44] [45] [46] Also, God Loves Hair is a Lambda Literary Award finalist and winner of the Applied Arts Award for Illustration. Yvarta (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable illustrator with no third-party sources, mainly Amazon links. Plus, how can you merge something with an article that doesn't even exist?? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled upon this article when improving an article I had been editing. In some places, it says she is an award winning illustrator, although the name of the award isn't there. For eg:- https://books.google.ae/books?id=LhE-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT6&lpg=PT6&dq=juliana+neufeld+award+winning+illustrator&source=bl&ots=WTlNThp8Ym&sig=17qFVhNtxMhfV8g4ZIVL56RzWIc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvgp6K56PTAhWBOhQKHesICDEQ6AEIUzAR#v=onepage&q=juliana%20neufeld%20award%20winning%20illustrator&f=false Here, don't know if it can be trusted. I think Move to God Loves Hair and placing a subsection for her would be appropriate. The book is notable. 2.51.20.209 (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Currently only one book illustrated. MightyWarrior (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest move to God Loves Hair and then delete redirect, maybe. But again, she has illustrated 5 books, so delete would also be a good option. 31.215.192.38 (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I in no way mean to impunge the !votes or the editors themselves, but I'm a bit confused by the repeated suggestions that we redirect the article to God Loves Hair - as Soixante-neuf ;) points out abve, how is this possible, since that article does not even exist?! -just wondering, you understand. Cheers, — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the article with additional references and would ask that all discussers and !voters re-evaluate the article. With the addition of more references this article subject passes WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has changed quite a bit since the most recent "delete" vote. Any comments on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Juliancolton I have added another reference and am doing more research about the article subject. I wish some editors that were here before would return to look at the revision of the article. I do not know if it would be proper to ping editors that have discussed or !voted here to return to take a second look. What do you think? Is that proper? Antonioatrylia (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pinging prior participants is acceptable and often encouraged. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two of the article citations therein are blog interviews that are more about the self-promotion of the subject than establishing notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While sources do exist, many of them are passing mentions. But, to satisfy the GNG, there are a lot of these mentions. So I am thinking that for the stub article, there are enough sources to prove notability. L3X1 (distant write) 13:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the book God Loves Hair definitely meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, oh look "someone" has created an article on itCoolabahapple (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a fair numbers of the reviews of God Loves Hair emphasise the integral role of the illustrations to the stories and the book so it can be used as an indication of Neufeld's notability; that said, a fair number of editors are uncomfortable with the notion that someone is notable for one work/book (although as i like to bring up, there are always exceptions ie. (until recently) Harper Lee:)), so something else is probably needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, It is not just one book, she has also illustrated several books in the James Patterson Treasure Hunters series. That has been added to the article with a citation. Actually the article looks way different than when it was nominated. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi Antonioatrylia, re Treasure Hunters, are they illustrated books?, it appears that Neufeld is the cover artist, do reviews of these books discuss the illustrations? ie. like God Loves Hair? has Neufeld received any awards for her illustrations/art? or exhibited them? looking at WP:NPEOPLE having created works is not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have looked into the Treasure Hunter series of books, yes they are illustrated books and Neufeld's illustrations are an integral part of them, some reviews: The New York Times - "These black-and-white illustrations are delightful — reminiscent of the elaborate doodles churned out in math class by the most awesome artist in seventh grade. Enthusiastic crosshatching, scribbly storm clouds and jagged lightning bolts burst with energy, and I enjoyed the shirtless stylings of girl-crazy, super-buff Tommy, a 17-year-old who “spends a lot of time on personal grooming.”"(Daring Deeds), Common Sense Media - "Cartoon-like black-and white illustrations by Juliana Neufeld add to the fun and make for smooth sailing, even for reluctant readers."(Treasure Hunters), Publishers Weekly - "adventures that Neufeld masterfully captures with humor and energy in b&w illustrations that have something of a Robert Neubecker vibe."(Treasure Hunters), so this looks like it may be a keeper. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a bit too thin. Sources do not cover the subject with any depth. Coverage of her work is not coverage of the subject. Her works (book illustrations) can be better covered separately with coverage of each book, until someone independent and reputable discusses the multiple illustrations collectively discussing style and differences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment God Loves Hair isn't turning up in any viable third-party sources either, and reviews alone do not notability make. The article creator is pulling the old "there's a lot of info out there on the web" schtick without actually including it in the article, other than links to meaningless book nominations that, again, do not make the book any more worthy of an article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, have a look at no. 1 of WP:NBOOK which specifically states that reviews (as long as independent and non-trivial) can be used for notability, the God Loves Hair article presently refers to 8 reviews that meet this requirement. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I often say TOOSOON as a way of making nice with minor W:CREATIVE types who look unlikely to ever pass the bar. Here, however, I mean it very precisely. This is an early career illustrator who has drawn attention from some reviewers for an illustrated book for children. there is every reasons to hope that she will go to illustrate more children's picture books that draw attention, or become a noted artist for some other body of work, or win a prize for her work. when one of those things happen, we can have an article about her. For now, however, we should delete, leaving the redlink at God Loves Hair.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasib Hussain

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

~~WP:BLP1E.~~ WP:BIO1E They were not known before 7th July 2005 London blasts. No other notability than one suicide bombing.

Oppose (propose merge) Regardless of how they fail the WP:BLP1E, none of these articles should be deleted; they should be merged into the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Deletion is a finality and whilst I don't object to the fact that they fail the guideline(s), a merge is far more palatable than a flat-out delete. Not all information needs to be merged, just some of the background. The joy of all things (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:BLP1E applies to living people, so is not applicable. The correct policy is WP:BIO1E, which they all seem to meet. I suspect that this would be a contentious deletion.--DavidCane (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still Oppose deletion following change of rationale. WP:BIO1E states "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". This seems to fit in these cases. Parallels would be the 19 9/11 hijackers who each have an individual article or the three IRA activists killed in Gibraltar during Operation Flavius.--DavidCane (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. DavidCane (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extensive media coverage including of the group of terrorists as individuals; and also above per DavidCane. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BIO1E which states "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". I'm often in favour of deleting articles about low level terrorists and criminals or minor incidents/failed plots. But the 2005 London bombings was a terrorist attack of virtually an unparalleled nature and is of significant historical importance. Therefore it easily meets the criteria at WP:BIO1E. AusLondonder (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ and selectively merge to 7 July 2005 London bombings as is usual with terrorists, excepting those who have committed multiple attacks. This young mass-murderer did not attain posthumous celebrity as some terrorists and other murderers have done, nor were there longform articles analyzing his path to terrorism. Articles about his background did run in several papers in the days after the attack, and these can be added to a section on him in the article on the bombing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing iVote to Keep, articles on all 4 are well-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nana - A Tale of Us

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

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could be deleted as the film is yet to be released, but it might be worth waiting a while to see if it receives significant coverage. RoCo^(talk) 18:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced unreleased film to be produced by a youth ministry, rather than a film studio. No chance of meeting WP:NFILM and WP:CRYSTAL also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kavanagh

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

No claim of notability, no secondary sources, does not meet WP:BIO. Rogermx (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet WP:AUTHOR and has a book in many libraries. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14 libraries is not "many". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can find adequate sourcing neither for Kavanagh nor for her book, this is usually the case for books about local history.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did a search, unable to find any coverage in RS that would make this person notable and I can see nothing that would meet NAUTHOR here. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable sources about her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna of Lindow-Ruppin

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

Delete: utterly non-notable minor member of the German nobility of the Middle Ages; copied and pasted almost entirely from WikiTree: The FREE Family Tree". Also please delete Anna von Schlesien-Sagan, which only functions as a redirect to the Anna of Lindow-Ruppin article. Quis separabit? 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Random IP addresses have been blanking or vandalizing this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Article isn't completely copied and Pasted from the WikiTree. TGPR Editor 18:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Could redirect to the article on her husband George I, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, or maybe an article on her family (Lindow-Ruppin is an article on German WP but I can't see one here). She doesn't appear independently notable. I don't think any sources meet our requirements for reliability, but I'm not an expert on genealogical records. Colapeninsula (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What makes her husband notable on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.162.94 (talk)

Rulers of independent states (even principalities) are generally considered notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: She is an ancestor to some important people in history. TGPR Editor 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"She is an ancestor to some important people in history." -- NOTE: Notability cannot be derived by dint of distant consanguinity to notable individuals. Quis separabit? 15:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTGENEALOGY. DrKay (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is unclear who her notable royal family members are, and if that would counter WP:NOTINHERITED. Some expert attention is needed. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear violation of Wikipedia not being geneology. If we cannot say anything more than what is said about her in the article, than we should not have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm WP:SNOW closing this one a day early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliria

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

As written, this appears to be a hoax. It apparently is a fictional place describes as fact. However, a Google search does not find enough evidence that it is a notable fictional place to be worth keeping even when rewritten as fiction. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It apparently is a fictional place; the article is written totally in-universe. Neither the author nor the work currently have articles (K. D. Williams is a football player, not an author). If this article were about an album, it would be speedy deleted, but there is no CSD for settings from non-notable works of fiction that are not written by the original editor. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per C. Fred. Even if this article were completely rewritten to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, it's not clear that the subject would be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable fictional place in Mysteries in the Locket . Dlohcierekim 04:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable, non-real place. I'd say we should redirect to the work or the author, but we don't even have articles on them.... Fyddlestix (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above/nom. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no references available anywhere on the internet - seems like a solid hoax to me. TopCipher (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Topcipher: here's one of several I found that show this is not a hoax. Why else do you think I added the fictional story edit to the article.? 😋 Dlohcierekim 13:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: My apologies for the confusion - I was rather referring to the content available in the article than the subject. That is something I wasn't able to find anywhere. For instance, if I search "Northern Pacific Ocean" and "Oliria" on Google (with quotes), I'm unable to find even a single reference - tried a few other references too with different combination of words but nothing comes-up as a reliable source to credibly justify the existence of the content provided over the article.
If I may, would recommend (request) that if you have found any such sources that actually prove content's authenticity, please do help with either sharing them here or better yet, citing them on the article directly and you may refer to my AFD track from before too that I'm a huge advocate in having to 'keep' articles than deleting them - so long as they abide by the guidelines :) Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing as not hoax is a long way from establishing notability. I simply read article talk and searched for Oliria and book title. Still NN work of NN author. Dlohcierekim 13:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is that the original editor excerpted information from the book(s) that mention the subject. Presumably we can't search online because of copyright protection on the book; even if the book were cited, we'd still be left with only primary sources.

Also, I was contemplating speedy for the article under G3 or A11. I did a Google search and turned up the book mentions. Even though I can't prove the subject is from the book, I also can't prove it's an outright hoax. I was going to give the OE a little more time to respond before starting down the AfD path; Robert McClenon was just quicker on the trigger than I. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw a relevant to this article excerpt in Amazon Kindle. Dlohcierekim 16:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its not a hoax, but the book it comes from does not appear notable, let alone this fictional location. There appear to be no online references on the topic of this "location". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firelight (card game)

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

A game that is announced from a company that does not meet notability standards Reb1981 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a niche card game which was announced for 2018. Their Kickstarter is set to start in July 2017. Its clearly too early for this per WP:TOOSOON. There is almost 0 coverage of this game. There are a couple of articles in non-RS webpages such as medium.com as well as some threads in RPG forums, but thats all which can be found. This is by no means enough to satisfy our notability guidelines. The company itself is also pretty no-name and the article looks like self-promotion. Since it fails WP:GNG due a lack of sources the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too soon for an article and fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jongman Kim

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

fails NACTOR DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note added BLPProd Dlohcierekim 03:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deleteNN. Does not meet GNG. Dlohcierekim 23:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete no major verified roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Gillespie

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

Completely unreferenced biography of a musician, whose only claim of notability is that he's worked with other musicians -- which is not an WP:NMUSIC pass in and of itself if the fact can't be referenced to enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG. But the only "references" here are primary sources, not reliable or notability-building ones. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant media coverage. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NARTIST. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Levin

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

Not a notable figure, reads like an advertisement, and lacks citations. Detroiting (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is so much an advertisement that it neglects to clearly mention Levin's 2006 defeat in running for the Michigan State Senate. The whole tone of the article is over advertorial. Levin does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians since he lost the election, and does not meet any other notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject not Notable enough. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Article gives off a promotional tone which has resulted in it becoming a biased article, most likely written by a person who has a personal relationship with the subject. —User4495 (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo. google-news (after filtering by his company from 2011) - [47] shows 4 hits - none of which are really significant. google hits paltry as well (in the hundreds at most).Icewhiz (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Byron Hanby, IV

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

Non-notable music video producer. Google search turns up the usual vanity hits and no third-party coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person. It lacks reliable sources, and also page creator appears to be connected to said person. Reb1981 (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2017 film graduates are very unlikely to be notable. Creating a bunch of music videos does not make someone notable. No sign of notability. He may be notable at some point, but not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search turned up zero independent mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; WP:TOOSOON at best. Narky Blert (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of the Holocaust (Guatemala)

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

fails WP:ORG. a search by its spanish name Museo del Holocausto de Guatemala only gave 1 gnews hit. the Spanish version of this article only has one source. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yahad-In Unum There is some amount of coverage in spanish (for example 1, 2) and this from the Jewish Press. However a lot of it is run of the mill/focuses more on Yaha-In Unum and/or its creator. I think there is some notability in being the first Holocaust Museum in Central America, but not quite enough yet to warrant a full article. Ravendrop 02:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough sources exist to demonstrate significant coverage of this museum. I have found a full length article from Prensa Libre, the national newspaper of Guatemala, an article from Artnet, an article from Hispanos Press, and an article from Hadassah Magazine. Taken together, the information that can be gathered from these articles is much more than just passing mentions, and the museum has received enough attention in its own right to have an article separate from Yahad-In Unum. Altamel (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have informed the page author Dvdgrv of this discussion. Altamel (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Raj

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

Essentially unsourced since creation. Claimed filmmaker whose film has been "upcoming" since 2015 with no release. No evidence of notability in sources or searches. WP:BEFORE returns social media and little else. Does not pass WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I flagged this as an autobiography of dubious notability over 2 years ago and the problem remains. (I found mention of a 2014 film by a director of this name, but it is mere passing coverage and may not be the same person anyway, as it would challenge the assertion that "Dream Lock" is the subject's debut film.) No evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Lock

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

Unsourced article tagged for notability since 2015, for "upcoming" movie that, per bollywoodmdb.com, has yet to be released. No search results and no verifiable evidence of notability. Article claimed in 2/2015 that a "first draft was completed" in 5/2014. Per WP:CRYSTAL not sustainable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and SALT. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Islands national football team

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that it's been eight years since the last AfD, which fair enough. The underlying notability concerns remain the same though. There's nothing here that confirms that the team even exists, let alone meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. This has been deleted six times now and still there is nothing hinting this is anything other than a hoax. Last time it was deleted under G11, but it might as well qualify for G3. Why G4 was declined forcing this through AFD again is beyond me as it is very obvious it's merely delaying the obvious action.T v x1 02:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G4 as virtually identical to iteration deleted as result of prior AFD. The single source offers no significant (barely detectable) coverage. At any rate delete per not notable, whether we establish hoax or not. Dlohcierekim 03:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt deleted six times and created again. Someone has a lot of passion to do this... Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 05:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT, non-notable. Giant Snowman 07:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute before to say "Majuro delenda est"I'm the author of the last incarnation of this article. Sorry, but I didn't know anything about this discussion or that this article was deleted six time. For the firts I want to say that I didn't write this article for to produce an hoax or a fakenews. I traslated this article from a foreign wikipedia article and I made this operation quoting the source of the original article, while I was looking for other sources on the net, but you started the speedy delete before I could finish my research. So I don't know if you have already found it but, for example, there is an article from an encyclopedia: The Complete Guide National Symbols and Emblems by James Minahan that says only that exists a football team in Marshall Islands. I wouldn't have created this article if I was not sure about existence of this team. Maybe with a in-depth research it's possible to find something else.FootKalos1597 (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FootKalos1597: Thanks, but that's really not in-depth coverage sufficient to over-turn the prior AfD. Might I suggest finding coverage, citing/drafting the article at home, and when it looks acceptable submitting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_Creation. Dlohcierekim 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well-intentioned editors accidently recreating this w/o knowing what they are walking into argues for WP:SALT Dlohcierekim

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alwyn robinson

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

Musician with no evidence of notability. Refs are a press release , an affiliate site and a blog - nothing that adds up to notability. Earlier PROD removed by author following the addition of the blog reference. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Tagging for AfD was edit conflicted with a CSD tag. Withdrawing here to allow the CSD to run its course. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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