Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 January	12 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. ansh 666 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FMW 4th Anniversary Show

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

Nominated for failing our notability guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Sources are primary. I had originally tied this to another AfD with the same acronym but it was for a different wrestling organization and hence I have struck that. ~~The "parent" article went through AfD and consensus was delete. [[1]].~~ I would also like to include:

Otr500 said it best, at that AfD, "Does not meet WP:GNG per nominator. The issues: This article has ZERO references towards notability. There are 26 references listed, from two different sources, that are primary. The 19 references from the source "Cagematch" do not contain any mention of the subject that I saw but do reference "Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling" or the names of individual "team members". I read over half way through the FMW history2 reference before finding passing mention of the subject. While multiple primary reliable sources may be used to support content, an article relying on one source does not advance claims of notability. This becomes more of a problem when the source of the references are close to, or invested in, the subject. This is compounded exponentially when the subject involves a WP:BLP or information about living persons. The lead there states, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.", with the added, "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.". The policy Wikipedia:No original research deals with Primary, secondary and tertiary sources stating among other things "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.". How is notability established? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This will also ensure compliance with the policies on no original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, remembering: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. WP:ENT and WP:NSPORT are guidelines. This page in a nutshell on both guidelines state: "...is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", so the "subject" fails both of these guidelines, especially by not complying with more than one relevant policy. There is one more "issue" I ran across. Of the 26 references, some of them duplicates, the article is written from the single FMWHistory2 source because all the others generally just show matches with individual names (not including the subject) so there appears to be a lot of synthesis. All of this leads me to consider that there is serious instances of citation overkill to falsely present notability." Ifnord (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I found it non-notable. It was the biggest annual event of FMW and there is no specific reason to find it non-notable. It was the most significant event in the company's history and the sources have indicated it. If you still want to delete it after adding enough sources and working very hard then I shall restrain myself from wasting time in working hard to create articles in Wikipedia.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"no specific reason to find it non-notable" Really? How about right now it doesn't seem to have coverage in reliable sources, which is the only form of notability wikipedia cares about.★Trekker (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such people who may want to get detailed information on the event which they may be unable to get on other websites will be convenient in getting information on FMW's flagship event at Wikipedia. A free encyclopedia, as it claims, must provide information on FMW's biggest yearly event. Maybe puroresu fans are looking for such information and they may find it helpful. This information is definitely not false or wrong. Sources provided in the article are accurate, not only in the FMW 4th Anniversary Show but also in FMW 5th Anniversary Show, FMW 6th Anniversary Show, FMW 7th Anniversary Show, FMW 8th Anniversary Show, FMW 9th Anniversary Show, FMW 10th Anniversary Show, FMW 11th Anniversary Show, and FMW 12th Anniversary Show. The information in these articles may be helpful for readers who want to read and research on these below mentioned articles. Thanks. --Mark Linton (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the deletion tag from these articles because I don't find them non-notable. If you still want to delete then you are admins and you have authority to do it. I cannot do anything about it and I don't need to give any explanation on it. I have already worked very hard and provided enough sources, which are true. If you will encourage me to expand these articles by removing "deletion tag" then I will provide more information and I think sources are enough to give information. If you do have any solid and suitable answer to my claims then do reply me on my talk page instead of deleting these articles and if you wanted to place "deletion tag" then you could have done it when I created these articles. Now, I can only request you, not to delete them after a lot of hard work and after a very long time. Thanks.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have to advertise or provide information on any event that is not notable, please see WP:IINFO. For guidelines on notability, please see WP:GNG. You have been creating large numbers of articles, either you're a big fan or a paid promoter of the event. Your zeal is commendable but this topic does not deserve articles in an encyclopedia. Additionally, do not remove any notices on pages nominated for deletion until the AfD is settled. Ifnord (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expanding or further contributing to these articles because I am damn sure that you are going to delete them anyway, so there is no use of working hard.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also encourage you to read the page regarding AfD so you can understand the process. I have reformatted your input here to make it more readable. Ifnord (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only think I can see on that link which you mentioned is "Bad title" and nothing else.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I have been creating professional wrestling articles and contributing to them for the past one decade. You can check my history since fall 2007 and I am not new to creating and editing articles but it seems that my hardwork has not been paid off. I am not new to Wikipedia. I know how to create and edit articles and I have edited these FMW Anniversary Show articles in the same way as other professional wrestling events are covered in Wikipedia. There were other references of blogspot and wordpress as well but I did not enter them because you would not have considered them anyway. If you still want me to add them as references to the Anniversary Shows then I will add sources of blogspot and wordpress as well.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't considered valid sources. Again, your zeal is commendable. But, please, see WP:GNG for guidelines on notability. WP:WHYN explains why those policies exist and WP:RELIABLE explains what valid sources are.Ifnord (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know blogs are not valid sources that is why I did not added them. I have added their video links of YouTube which you may find useful to find detailed description of the FMW events. FMW was a popular company in Japan. It definitely was not on the calliber of New Japan or All Japan but had its own fanbase and a strong following and a lot of notability in the world. What made Hayabusa so famous despite having never worked for NJPW and AJPW. It was his time in FMW where he wrestled industry's greats and made a name for himself as one of the world's most popular wrestlers and his moves are still duplicated and adopted by many famous North American wrestlers. Have a look at Hardcore Holly, whose move Falcon Arrow was initially created by Hayabusa and it is so ironical that "falcon" is the English translation of the Japanese word "Hayabusa" and Falcon Arrow was named after Hayabusa's gimmick. Another finishing move was Phoenix Splash, which is also used by many famous North American wrestlers and was created and innovated by "Hayabusa".--Mark Linton (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned about WP:GNG, I have read the statement "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." YouTube links of these FMW events, which I have listed in the external links of these articles and your main article's external links are reliable sources which are obviously independent of the subject and have coverage of the entire events. Ifnord, you can check the external links of these mentioned FMW Anniversary Show articles and you can check the videos mentioned in the external links and visit them. The YouTube links of these articles definitely meet Wikipedia's GNG policy.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, on your WP:GNG policy which you have mentioned, there is a statement ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Now I don't need to give any more significant coverages and sources rather than the YouTube links of these FMW events. Do not forget that FMW was the pioneer of deathmatch wrestling in Japan, paving the way for Big Japan, IWA Japan, W*ING, FREEDOMS and others etc. They were not meeting the standard of New Japan or All Japan but they have their own fanbase and their own popularity. Video sources of YouTube are more than enough because YouTube is considered to be the most popular and most authentic online video streaming website on the Internet today.--Mark Linton (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will further contribute and expand these articles only after I get a response from you, Ifnord because there is no use of working hard on an article which I fear may be deleted by admins despite being provided many sources of notability.--Mark Linton (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you quite understand what independent means as a source. A YouTube video could be considered a reliable source... But only an independent source if it's a reliable publication talking about the subject. A video of the subject is in no way an independent source. It's actually very specific on this on WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are definitely large events that I do believe would meet WP:GNG the issue is that these are going to be mostly Japanese sources that will support it. FMW doesnt have the same international following as a NJPW does. I am not familiar enough with the language to search or recognize a GNG from not in Japanese. Perhaps someone who is more familiar can. - Galatz ^Talk 14:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nom - @Ifnord: Please strike out your original comment, as it is misleading to readers. You stated The "parent" article went through AfD and consensus was delete however Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling and FMW Anniversary Show are the parent articles. The AfD you mentioned is for Funk Masters of Wrestling, which was a tag team unrelated to this topic. I suggest you be careful when make such claims. - Galatz ^Talk 15:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point, will do. Ifnord (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering these are Japanese events, maybe it would be good if someone who knows locate Japanese sources could help and try to find some.★Trekker (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - inappropriate bundling of nominations - According to the articles, attendances varied wildly between 4,000 and over 50,000 so it is completely unreasonable to bundle the shows together into one AFD. None of the WP:BUNDLE criteria are met. Renominate individual shows if necessary. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The number of viewers of an event or pay-per-view is immaterial if it remains non-notable. A one-time event of no notability will get less attention over time, not more. See WP:SUSTAINED. Just because a football game has 50,000 people watching, would it pass the notability criteria for the attendance alone? No. Ifnord (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assessment. It's hard to believe that these articles are of the same noteworthy enough. Likely a lot of Japanese sources live out there, so, under these terms, if we could prove one of the articles pass WP:GNG then all of these articles should be passed as keep For that end, PWMania make a big deal out of old FMW shows Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making no !vote or comment on their actual notability. But such a drastic variation in attendance indicates that notability levels are guaranteed to be significantly different from one event to another. Thus they should absolutely not be bundled at AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I know we're treading on WP:MUSTBESOURCES, but there must be sources! FMW was a major promotion in the 1990s and the anniversary shows are always a big deal. I would recommend closing these nominations and tagging the articles to give us time to fix this up. If there are no improvements then these should be renominated separately.LM2000 (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the attendance alone makes it somewhat notable. The sourcing needs improved but that's an argument for improvement, not deletion. McPhail (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, @LM2000, I agree with you to keep these articles and these articles shall be improved instead of being deleted. I have provided enough sources in this article and these sources are definitely not false. The details including venue, date and attendance records are almost similar in all these websites aka Pro Wrestling History, Cagematch and Wrestlingdata, so there is no use of considering it "vandalism", "non-notable" or "false". We cannot improve the sources and these articles until and unless the "deletion tag" is present because there is no use of working hard on them if these are going to get deleted, so we recommend to keep these articles.--Mark Linton (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an article gets deleted and you think you could have sourced and improved it with more time, you can always ask the deleting admin to "userfy" the article, which means transplanting the deleted material to your own userspace where it can be worked on and potentially restored to mainspace. The admin is within their rights to refuse, of course. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom has changed his original criteria to criteria which is once again misleading. Ifnord is now using WP:SPORTCRIT which is inaccurate as this is not a sport. - Galatz ^Talk 04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all individual articles into main FMW Anniversary Show article (including 1–3, which were left out of this AfD). Some of these individual shows may be notable, but not a single person who has commented so far has proven it (WP:MUSTBESOURCES). I've found a few trivial mentions: PWInsider and SLAM Wrestling, but certainly nothing that could be called significant coverage. Admittedly, I cannot read Japanese, so I'm aware that my research is limited. With that in mind, I propose merging all the individual events into the parent article so that the information is not lost, and so they can be spun back out into individual articles if/when proper sourcing is found. Nikki♥311 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~, Keep~~ Many people have tried to consider it a non-notable event but if you try to search further on the Internet, you will find more reliable sources. The primary source of FMW's own website has already provided detailed information on these events and multiple sources on the Internet can provide you information regarding these events. They were very notable significant events in professional wrestling history. Are you going to contact Atsushi Onita and people involved in these events? Many of the primary people involved like Eiji Ezaki, Shoichi Arai and Kodo Fuyuki are dead, so who are you going to ask?--Mark Linton (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can this source of a newspaper publication Tokyo Sports be useful to you as you were asking for "reliable sources" in newspapers, publications etc. I have found one and it is a Japanese source. You were looking for reliable Japanese sources of newspapers and publications and I have found one to prove its notability. I don't think you shall consider this source unreliable. I have added the source in FMW 4th Anniversary Show and FMW 5th Anniversary Show.--Mark Linton (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice. I've struck out your second vote. Thanks. Nikki♥311 00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is pointless as it has been pointed out. There are reliable sources including FMW's own site as it has been pointed out. Beating a dead horse repeating what has been said over and over. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- FMW's own site is a primary source and does not prove notability. Nikki♥311 00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this event was not popular then your debate and deletion process has made it popular. This is a significant event and many sources have been given. OK, FMW is the primary source so it is not reliable, so a Tokyo Sports may be reliable to you which is in Japanese and is a newspaper publication. Internet coverage was not so common back in the 1990s as it is today, so it is difficult to find newspaper publications of the 1990s on the net today. I have tried to search Weekly Pro Wrestling on the Internet but Google has not given me any archives of the newspaper but the newspaper or magazine whatever it is, has definitely existed. FMW definitely existed and these events were significant and popular in FMW history. Kindly remove the deletion tag.--Mark Linton (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blatently obvious this is a major notable event. Probably even more RS sources available in Japanese. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no room for argument, Nikki♥311, since this event is a major notable event and if you want to add reliable sources then you can search on the Internet and if you browse in detail then you will find more and more sources. The FMW Anniversary Show was a very popular professional wrestling event of its era. I was planning on contributing and expanding to these articles but due to the fear of deletion tag, I have stepped back. If you encourage me and assure me that the article will not be deleted then I will consider editing it.--Mark Linton (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have commented above that the criteria for nomination above was flawed which the nominator fixed and gave additional false criteria, utilizing WP:SPORTCRIT which does not apply here. Right on that page it states clearly Any athletic entertainment event where the results are at least partially predetermined or scripted is not covered by this page. For participants in such events (e.g. Professional wrestling), see WP:ENTERTAINER.

Additionally as mentioned about I do not believe WP:BUNDLE criteria is met. There are 4 criteria that need to be met. The articles are clearly not a hoax, spam or manufactured products, therefore in order to qualify they need to be a "group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles." They certainly dont have identical content and FMW 11th Anniversary Show is under 5,000 bytes and FMW 4th Anniversary Show is over 20,000 bytes. Clearly they don't have identical content.

Therefore the AfD should be procedurally closed and Ifnord should be warned to be more careful when nominating articles in the future, as misleading criteria and incorrect bundling can skew the results. - Galatz ^Talk 13:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, now, should I remove the deletion tag or will you remove it? And if the AFD is closed then should I continue improving the FMW Anniversary Show articles?--Mark Linton (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the closing admin should. - Galatz ^Talk 17:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the closing admin? Just close it, dear, so I may carry on with these articles.--Mark Linton (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in order to understand how the process works. - Galatz ^Talk 19:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barnes (journalist)

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST, a local TV presenter with nothing of note Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's waaay WP:TOOSOON for this young, local, broadcast sports journalist. Not to mention a total lack of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above - not notable (yet). Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Harvey

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST, unreferenced since 2015 Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Twitter is totally and completely not a reliable source, and we need to expeditiously delete articles that are only sourced to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete longstanding article on local journalist with NO SOURCES. (an no deleted sources found in article history.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No RS to support. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOWC

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

Seems just like a dictionary entry. Mattg82 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Source mainly primary or trivial coverage and does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local Heroes, Inc.

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

No notability asserted, no sources found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is poorly sourced. There is some coverage - all of it local - e.g. [2] or [3] [4] (interestingly, both articles 3 years apart (2013, 2016) use the same blurb - Over the last eight years, Local Heroes Inc. has sent more than 15,000 packages to military worldwide - no one bother to update the year/package count.Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local trivia. Kierzek (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, local only.L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No substantial RS, local newspapers only. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Za wl 15:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ecclesiastical abbreviations

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

Ridiculously long glossary of abbreviations. None of this is noteworthy or sourced, nor is there any criteria for inclusion (what makes the word "otherwise" ecclesiastical?) If anything is salvageable, move it to wiktionary Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself is, in part, sourced to a public domain encyclopedia, which effectively negates the two arguments advanced (non-notable and unsourced) by the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it may use improvements, it seems like relevant to me. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How does "delete it because there are too many things in it" work as an argument for deletion? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The prose could stand some work (inline citations, etc.), but since this article was originally copied from a public-domain encyclopedia, it's really hard to argue that the topic is not, you know, like, encyclopedic. I don't see a real problem with inclusion criteria — the question isn't whether an English word is exclusively ecclesiastical, but whether its Latin translation has a standard abbreviation used in ecclesiastical sources. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a fairly worthy list article to me. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Rheingold

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

BLP Copyright violation. Essentially unsourced for over 6 years and cursory search didn't yield any decent sources. Mattg82 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zero coverage of subject found. Searched and found no sources that back up notability. Clearly fails WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete script writers for animated series may actually have large impacts, but we lack the reliable sources that show that this is really the case for Rheingold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunaina Samriddhi Foundation

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

Promotional, lacking decent references, no evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails the GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and purely promotional. WP:NOTWEBHOST Hagennos (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oren Ginzburg. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 15:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungry Man

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

Kept in the more inclusionist 2005, today this seems to clearly fail Wikipedia:Notability (books): no reviews I an see, and no lasting impact. Old wiki article had two reviews, both links are dead and they don't look that reliable (tried archive.org but they are having issues, sigh). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try merging or redirecting the article to the author's page? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author page; it's not Oren Ginzburg's best known work, but other books by him have got more coverage (in non-American sources). There's very little to merge and calling it "funny" isn't appropriate without a source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or otherwise provide references that substantiate it as a notable work of Ginzburg's. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's concern about this being poorly named, but there's clear consensus to keep it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biotech industry in Boston

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

The article is a collection of internal links. WP:NOTLINK Jamez42 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, if an article subject has potential to include more information, it doesn't need to be deleted. It can be improved. That's why we don't delete every stub article. Second, WP:PURPLIST, says "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." Natureium (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, would appear to have the potential to be a good article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article could be renamed as a list if it meets the notability criteria. While the last editions were a significant contribution for the content, per WP:OSE I wish to give Biotechnology industry in China and Biotechnology in India as examples, as they include more comprehensive information regarding the industry as a whole. One of my concerns is also that an article only about Boston is too obscure, so I also encourage simply creating "Biotechnology industry in the United States".--Jamez42 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important tech topic that meet WP:GNG by decent coverage in reliable sources Business Insider, The Economist. And the article has even more, including sources from Nature which all discuss the topic directly. I agree it needs to be renamed to use formal term " Biotechnology" instead of informal "Biotech" but that's not issue of AfD, it would be done later. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's fundamental disagreement here about what makes a military aviation crash notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Al-Anbar CH-53E crash

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

Very tragic, but non notable as a military accident with no notable passengers, actions, victims, consequences of effects on safety or aircraft operations WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, sad, but the article has no place in wikipedia, which is not a repository of every bump and scrape that occurs in aviation! Petebutt (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well I found it significant because this particular crash was the deadliest one, out of hundreds, to occur in the course of the Iraq War. It was also the incident that made January 26th, 2005 the deadliest day for coalition forces in eight years of fighting. Not to mention, the costliest accident in the history of this particular airframe. Although I do agree there is nothing really encyclopedic that transpired as a result of the crash and media coverage was slim, the accident, I think, holds a particular importance in the history of the Iraq War and the operational history of the CH-53E. Ftxs (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.I agree with Petebutt . It should be mentioned in the Iraw war page, certainly, in the context of that. But as it is, no high ranking profile people died, and it is one of many incidents in the war, all of which can't get a wikipedia page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People die in war; it's been sugarcoated by the media, but that's how it is. It's unfortunate, but s[tuff] happens, and there is nothing that makes this accident notable enough for its own article vis-a-vis being mentioned in the appropriate "this time period in the Iraq War" article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but not notable military accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This was the single most deadly incident to affect the US forces during the invasion and occupation of Iraq, so seems to justify an article (we have articles on much smaller incidents of the war). 31 fatalities in an air crash is a lot by modern standards. Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Ftxs that the crash was prominent, with a large number of casualties, resulting in the deadliest day of the war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a sad event but military aircraft accidents are rarely noteworthy particularly combat related, can be added to the various list articles but doesnt need a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Parroting of CRASH (as SOLDIER) needs to stop. A F-16 crash is rarely notable, indeed. When 31 people die - it often is notable. In this case, this has been described as the deadliest day of the war - [5], and has been covered in a LASTING fashion - [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to where WP:AIRCRASH has been mentioned in this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The comment above me appeared to be to be a quote from CRASH.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the rationale that this incident contributed to the deadliest day of the war. Kees08 (Talk) 08:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Although I truly respect any uniform men and women for serving their countries and/or defend a good course, troops die and aircrafts shot down/crash are not significant news when it comes to war. The argument that it was one of the dealiest day of the American war in modern day but in comparing to hundred of civilians causality in an attack that would be mild and low in significant of the mission. The nobility is relative of a part to the whole. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Similar to the recent Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming DRV, the major point of contention here is whether a obit in the NY Times is sufficient to establish notability. It's unclear from the comments left by the keep camp, how much weight they put on the obit itself, and how much on the other coverage. But, in any case, the preponderance of opinion is that there's not enough here to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Miles

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

Lack of significant coverage. Miles had a full career, but merely having a job on TV doesn't make you notable. Probably a wonderful person, but I don't see where he passes WP:JOURNALIST. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. Just having a job on TV is not enough to be in encyclopedia. Also WP:NOTOBITUARY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above - fails WP:NBIO Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of a written obituary in The New York Times (not a self submitted obit but an actual journalist written obituary). Winner of several journalism awards. Satisfies WP:N and WP:JOURNALIST in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A NYT obit doesn't establish notability. If he weren't a local figure, the case may be a little stronger, but big as the NYT is, it still covers local news too. And he shared some local Emmys Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat borderline but the assertions from tge NYT obit and the extent of coverage seem to me to be enough. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NYT obits don't establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regional emmies do not add towards notability, nor does anything else here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The existence of an obituary in The New York Times is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, particularly for a person whose notability claim is located inside the NYT's local coverage area. It certainly points at the potential for notability if more sources could be shown than just the obituary itself, but the obit does not singlehandedly confer a magic pass of WP:GNG as an article's only source. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn news anchor. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO & the obit is not an automatic pass in and of itself; there should be other sources available. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and Wikipedia is not a tribute site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think if the New York Times thinks he is notable enough to have an obit article, then he's clearly notable. Would be good if more RS was added. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Za wl 15:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) seminaries

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

Unsourced since forever, no notability. Tagged for merge, but nothing really worth keeping Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see is valid as a list of seminaries of a major religious denomination. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a list-article corresponding to Category:Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) seminaries, and it lists numerous Wikipedia-notable (they all have articles) seminaries. There are sources in those linked articles which do not have to be repeated in the list-article. The gist of guideline wp:CLT is that Categories, List-articles, and Navigation templates are complementary and desirable. --Doncram (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am sure this must be verifiable, though currently unreferenced. The seminaries of a major denomination is certainly a notable topic. I cannot find the merge discussion, but I would oppose merger to the denomination, which is already a large enough article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right about there seeming to be no Merger proposal at Talk page of either article. Upon conclusion of this AFD, assuming "Keep" decision, would the closer please remove the merger tags, too. Of course someone can create a valid new merger proposal at any time, if they will actually take time to create a proper discussion. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maryslim

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

Fails WP:BAND Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above - not notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails BAND. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete band appears to have received some coverage (not contained in article) from reliable sources ... however, there is no evidence of a chart topping album, or other criteria that would help it bass notability band or general notability Burley22 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is significant coverage out there, it's hard to find. I added a source about one of the musicians where the band is mentioned, but as the article stands now it fails to meet the requirements of WP:NBAND. Sam Sailor 11:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Za wl 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Economies of agglomeration

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

No sourcing, total essay. Unclear focus. Unclear what kind of agglomeration this even refers to, as agglomeration is a dab page. Couldn't find any sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a legitimate economic term, running it on Google scholar gives me 6000 results. Article needs referening and also written like an essay. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's a legitimate economic term. Fix the page if you don't like it.dml (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Written like essay is not valid reason for deletion. Also the vague nomination doesn't statr true state of the article. You claimed it's "unsourced" but that's utterly not true and anybody can verify this. It has 10 valid sources including academic books and print sources. You said you couldn't find any source; although strange, I can believe you, but with pointing that others have found sources and the article has sources, decent sources for that matter. Your claim of unclear focus, this may be slightly true especially if you say "poorly organized" and even then, it is also not valid reason for deletion. It just needs copyedit when willing volunteer come around it. You earlier tagged it for PROD and it was speedily challenged. If you can't fix it leave it for others to fix and that have no deadline. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Zafar Iqbal

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Störm (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable subject, fails WP:NJOURNALIST Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akbar Al Azhari

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable subject, fails WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could had been proposed for speedy deletion, under WP:BLPPROD. --Saqib (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sex at Oxbridge

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Just trivial coverage in tabloid sites. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon reflection, I can see the blog seems to be no longer active - and weak references.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources check out on the Telegraph and the Mail. The Sun no longer has it on its website, but two out of three sources with the subject as its main focus begrudgingly makes it notable enough for me. Ifnord (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam for a blog, created in 2010 and then mostly forgotten, weak references. Doesn't pass gng. Szzuk (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is a one and done article -- it got headlines in 2010 and has been devoid of sources since ... while notability is not temporary, Wikipedia is also not a newspaper Burley22 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above - fails WP:RS, orphaned. fish&karate 12:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choudhry Muhammad Yousaf

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Also note he never served as a 'minister' in the cabinet. Instead he was appointed as Secretary. Störm (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable subject, fails WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion nomination states the subject has been a state minister. But verification is required to avoid deletion of the bio. I am unable to find a source which backup the claims. Therefore unless a RS could be provided which verify the claims, this poorly sourced page which contains OR, can be safely Deleted. Secretary is not equivalent to a state minister. --Saqib (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banbah (Bomba) Chief of Muzaffarabad

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Looks copy-paste type article. Störm (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable subject, checked Google and Google scholar, no hits. No RS in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom Thalium (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Suárez racial abuse incident

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

Article is unneeded while main content is covered at Luis_Suárez.The content also violates WT:NPOV and WP:COI. Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does it violate WP:COI. AIRcorn (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really really dislike this article and would love nothing more than for it to be deleted. It is a NPOV and BLP nightmare. However it clearly passes WP:GNG. Maybe it would be better off redirected to his main article, but it is probably alright in its present form. I just noticed Luis Suárez controversies which is ten times worse and should be deleted as a WP:POV fork if nothing else. I see it was kept as no consenus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Suárez controversies three years ago. I think I will nominate it now. AIRcorn (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a separate article. Szzuk (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't merit a separate article. Giant Snowman 12:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already covered in sufficient detail in the player's article. Not an incident that has gained sufficient sustained coverage to be notable as an incident on its own. Fenix down (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content is of importance, but can go into the player's article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Lots of sources found for notability. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Guthrie (editor)

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

this person seems to be non-notable. He was fired , sued his employer and won. big deal?? all three links provided are related to the lawsuit The 6th Floor (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Plenty of independent coverage on subject across 15+ years that extend well beyond the high-profile lawsuit (excerpts below):

John Huxley, (12 Oct 1995) 'Newspaper Allies Are Now Rivals' The Sydney Morning Herald p. 7

The battle for Melbourne's shrinking newspaper market has always been tough, turbulent and, in the case of some titles, terminal. Now, it is set to turn personal with the appointment of Mr Bruce Guthrie as the new editor of The Age.

Sid Marris & Benjamin Haslem (1 Aug 1997) 'Kennett hopes for loving Age' The Australian p. 6

VICTORIAN Premier Jeff Kennett yesterday renewed his attack on the editorial management of The Age newspaper, indicating he had complained to management about the behaviour of editor Bruce Guthrie.

Richard Yallop (23 Aug 1997) 'Age editor quits citing difference in outlook' The Australian p. 2

THE editor of The Age, Bruce Guthrie, resigned yesterday, telling staff he did not share the same vision for the newspaper as the newly appointed editor-in-chief and publisher, Steve Harris.

Catherine Fox (8 Dec 1998) 'Former Age editor goes to Who' The Australian Financial Review p. 36

Time Inc is replacing Mr Tom Moore, the editor of its troubled weekly magazine Who Weekly with the former editor of Fairfax's The Age, Mr Bruce Guthrie.

Helen Westerman (18 Jan 2007) 'New editor for Herald Sun' The Age

Guthrie, currently editor of The Weekend Australian magazine, is on holiday in Colorado and was unavailable for comment yesterday. He began his career with the The Herald in Melbourne in 1971, going on to become editor of The Sunday Age in 1992 and The Age in 1995, where he was a vocal critic of then Victorian premier Jeff Kennett. Guthrie later left to edit People magazine and Who Weekly before being made Time Inc Australia's editorial director in 2003. He returned to News Limited in 2004.

Jonathon Chancellor (9 Nov 2008) 'Title deeds' The Sydney Morning Herald p. 52

FORMER Who Weekly editor, Bruce Guthrie, now editor-in-chief of The Herald Sun, has listed his 1930s Sydney residence with plans to upgrade his Melbourne abodes. More than $2.3million is expected for the recently tenanted Cremorne house with pool. ... It was bought by Guthrie and his wife, restaurant reviewer Janne Apelgren, for $1.25million in 1999 shortly after his appointment as Who Weekly editor following his return to Australia from New York.

Andrew Crook (10 Jun 2011) 'Murdoch bites man: HWT 'threatened' Press Club over Guthrie book' Crikey

The Herald and Weekly Times issued threats to withdraw funding to the Melbourne Press Club if it went ahead with a proposal to launch Bruce Guthrie’s best-selling book Man Bites Murdoch, according to the distinguished former editor of the Herald Sun.

'Further to the Guthries' (22 Nov 2013) The Australian Financial Review p. 37

Some Rear Window readers may have figured from Monday's item on the Industry SuperFunds-owned fledgling digital site, thenewdaily.com.au, that director Bruce Guthrie was paying his daughter Susannah out of the project's coffers. Actually, she's not being paid by The New Daily. Ms Guthrie has recently returned from an extended stint at Time Inc in New York.

Clearly the article needs expanding, as do a lot of other articles on the Australian media, but this is no reason to delete it. As a side note, would it be more appropriate to disambiguate this page as journalist rather than editor? Editor is quite a broad term. Kb.au (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As shown above, there are coverage beyond the lawsuit. Also has been editor of several notable papers, the article needs renaming and expansion though. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about a rename. ~~Would Bruce Guthrie (journalist) be acceptable?~~ Should it be moved to Bruce Guthrie as it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? The only other link on the disambiguation page, Bruce Guthrie (politician), redirects to United States Senate election in Washington, 2006 where a Bruce Guthrie was a non-notable candidate. Kb.au (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought of that when I checked the DAB page to see what it disambiguates. It is unnecessary as the politician never had an article it is more appropriate to use hatnote until the time we have more entries that really needs disambiguation. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested this move at WP:RMT. Kb.au (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is kept, there is a request to move it to Bruce Guthrie, as the other Bruce Guthrie is handled by a hatlink. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The subject was a four term member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and a former Cabinet Minister in the Government of Maharashtra. The subject clearly passes WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 15:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Shingne

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

Single external link supports nothing in the text of this BLP. LukeSurl^{t c} 17:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A poorly written and sourced article, but there are available sources which confirm the subject as a former elected MLA [11] and Health minister in the Maharashtra government [12]. Meets WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well, it looks like only a single person advocates having an article on this topic. Concerns range from the notion that this is a non-notable neologism and that it doesn't have an unified definition to concerns that this article is original research, and especially the last point has been only weakly contested; even by the keep argument it seems like the topic is largely synthesized and not covered in a cohesive manner by sources under this term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperwar

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

Sending this to AfD per this conversation at MILHIST talk. The article as written is an essay and pure OR excluded by WP:NOTESSAY. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the creator's own words, "This is a novel concept with precious few resources devoted towards it". If you want a site to host your original research, Wikipedia is not what you're looking for. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not my research, it’s a concept that the defense department and Brookings are arguing is ’the’ future of warfare. Abattoir666 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I’m sure one could argue that the DOD and the World’s pre-eminent think tank are niche.... Abattoir666 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care what the DoD and the Brookings Institution say. We only cover what independent, third party, reliable sources say about a topic; if those sources don't exist, it doesn't get an article, and if you claim the sources do exist the onus is on you to find them. ‑ Iridescent 17:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yesterday I examined many of this article's sources, and found that they do not support the article's text. Most notably, the reference used to cite the concept of "hyperwar" in the lead (and which is later re-used in the body of the article) does not even mention the term "hyperwar"! I made these edits to remove these misleading references. Abattoir666 has since reverted all of my changes (thus re-adding this deception) and abused me in the process - their abusive edit summary is also misleading, as the source does not actually explain how the website got that name. As this appears to be a non-notable topic and the article is largely not supported by the claimed sources, there's no notability and nothing to salvage here. The closing admin may want to consider sanctioning Abattoir666 for this conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I concur. I have reviewed all the sources (bar the one behind a paywall) and they do not support the statements in the article. The term is clearly WP:NEO. The Origin section first paragraph describes war, and does not articulate why ‘hyperwar’ is different. The second paragraph has no source for the first sentence, and the source for the second sentence does not actually support the term as defined. The Modern Usage section lacks citations for key parts and reads like opinion. In addition Abbattoir666 has engaged in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which has prevented any other contributions to the article. Gibbja (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources linking to the article don't explicitly state the word hyperwar for legitimate reasons. For one, because no editors have bothered to make an article explaining the "maturing precision strike regime", an overwhelmingly well documented concept formulated by the DOD's very own Office of Net Assessment, no reader will have any idea what that means. Hence the link to the paper by CSBA, an ONA associate and long term developer of said concept. These references aren't misleading in the slightest, because they have to explain concepts that no one here has yet bothered to explain. Regarding the website Hyperwar, the author the website clearly capitalized on the IT revolution and the common phraseology referring to the Second World War as a "Hyperwar" to name his website "HyperWar" - an unsubtle pun relating to his gratuitous usage of hypertexts and reference to the scale of the Second World War. If it's a matter of sourcing that's at issue, more sources and explication can be provided as necessary, but we run the risk of making a relatively short article indicating another iteration of RMA into a disgusting 3000 word monstrosity. Also, contending the source behind the paywall is a nonstarter, I linked the official source for obvious reasons, but a quick google search will also bring up this alternative [[13]] , as well as this video by the article's secondary author [[14]]. Don't let my abusive behavior mislead you, particular given it was directed towards misguided edits that would obfuscate a particularly complex subject - while "HyperWar" a history of the Second World War so in depth that the US government picked it up to archive it is worthy of a it's own article. This article describing Hyperwarfare for the masses, a concept spurred on by the president of the World's most powerful Thinktank (also a four star general), covering every recent revolution in military technology is worthy of Wikipedia. Gentlemen, with this article we are at the forefront of the Revolution in Military Affairs, deleting it would just push wikipedia's military section towards obsolescence. Abattoir666 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/should-pentagon-let-robots-kill-humans-maybe/ what's more Abattoir666 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This more has the fel of a dictionary definition than an encyclopedic article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
^ That can be altered, do you have grammatical/sytactical/content suggestions in mind? Abattoir666 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO, WP:CRYSTAL Mztourist (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article clearly states, this is hardly a neologism, as it's been in use in roughly four ways for well over 70 years. On the grounds that there is a Federally archived webpage history of the Second World War alone the page should be kept. Nor is this a case of using a crystal ball, Hyperwar in the form espoused by a figure more credible than any wikipedia editor could dream of being, suggests an admixture of Precision-Strike, Drone Technology, etc.. which is already occurring in its nascent form. This is clearly not speculative, but a sober observation by overly qualified individuals on the changing nature of warfare. Abattoir666 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article makes that claim, but several of the supposed sources given for this term and concept do not even include the term "hyperwar". Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a matter of collocating the sources with appropriate portions of the article, I'm sure this can be remediated with some exertion on my part. But several of the sources are here to explicate Hyperwar's subordinate concepts, like for instance a [maturated precision-strike regime], a key component of any "hyperwar", but one that as of yet has not enjoyed really any "popular" coverage (well... it has, there was that brief fascination with America's wonder weapons following the Gulf Wars, but that's largely dissipated). I don't want to overstep my lane too much, but among military planning circles, the upper-echelons of America's command structure, and scattered among America's "top tier" defense think tanks, phrases like "maturated precision-strike regime" (which really only translates to technological developments in sensors, target packages, satellites, etc..; just think anything Tom Clancy would write about, boy do they love Tom Clancy) are among their vernacular. I guess a way to sort of simplify this (admittedly not enough for general audiences) is that the "Hyperwar" idea translates into a mixture of all of America's (and presumably our potential adversaries, but the US has a habit of setting the global tempo for warfare) doctrinal and operational concepts, as well as the private sector's developments in artificial intelligence and autonomous technology. Otherwise known as Desert Storm redux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abattoir666 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, the article seems to have been written with scant reference to the sources. The term is used in google scholar, but seems to not have a standardised meaning Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Brahmbhatt

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

No evidence for notability: was an unsuccessful election candidate in 2017. Article includes a lot of irrelevance about his father, but no assertion of notability for the subject. Was nominated for CSD A7 on basis of having no credible assertion of importance or significance, but rejected on basis of "Fails WP:NPOL courtesy coming 2nd in the 2017 Gujarat Assembly elections but not A7able stuff. Approach AFD." PamD 17:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — if he does not already have a preexisting notability claim that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia regardless of his candidacy, then he has to win the election and thereby hold the office, not just run and lose, to get a Wikipedia article because election. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unelected candidate generally fails WP:NPOL so would have to meet GNG, which this individual does not. Chetsford (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Hamza

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

Youth player. No indication that he has played a match in IFK Norrköping's team in Allsvenskan. Not on the team roster. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Sjö (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, he is not listed currently on the rooster, so fails the notability guideline for association football figures, and I find nothing that makes him pass the general notability guideline for people. Delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 12:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Za wl 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arnór Sigurðsson

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

Youth player. No indication that he has played a match in IFK Norrköping's team in Allsvenskan. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Sjö (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to his soccerway profile, Sigurdsson has made eight appearances in Allvenskan, meaning the article meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played 10 matches in Allsvenskan per this so he passes WP:NFOOTY. Also added this article to the references. Dammit_steve (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, very obvious, passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where even close to meeting the general notability guidelines. A few mentions in passing and in directories do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is only 18 years and is currently playing and passes WP:FOOTY after playing in Allsvenskan a fully Professional League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Lindgren

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

Youth player. No indication that he has played a match in IFK Norrköping's team in Allsvenskan, on the contrary svenskfotboll.se says zero matches. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Sjö (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fenix down: You have already !voted. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hampus Lönn

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

Youth player. No indication that he has played a match in IFK Norrköping's team in Allsvenskan. Not on the team roster. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Sjö (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to passing the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Bengtsson

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

No indication that he has played a match in IFK Norrköping's team in Allsvenskan. Not on the team roster. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Sjö (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played in a fully pro league. For the record I still think that playing part of one game in a fully pro league is way too low of a threshold for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 An Post. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geodirectory

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

Seems to have been tagged for notability for nearly ten years. In that time, the entry has alternated between a thickly promotional version and a neutral but bare version. I can't find any reliable/significant coverage. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Per nom, while there are a handful of sources available, they do not seem to meet WP:NPRODUCT to the extent that this service/database/subsidiary (An Post GeoDirectory DAC) should stand independent of its owner/operator (An Post DAC). It could easily be redirected to the "subsidiaries" section of the An Post article (which could be renamed to "subsidiaries and JVs" if needed). And the very small amount of cited and non-promotional text covered there. (Otherwise just delete. As CORPDEPTH, for the standalone entity/product/subsidiary, doesn't seem to be fully met). Guliolopez (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to An Post: seeing as the topic primarily concerns postal locations, this would appear to be the best option. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Travis

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

Run-of-the-mill businessman, fails WP:N and WP:NOTRESUME. Reference are also run-of-the-mill corporate announcements. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: needs more references; see [15] for impact when Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin-Robbins went public; more references [16] and [17], and plenty more. Agreed that current state reads like a resume, but it seems clear to me that there is plenty more out there on Travis. = paul2520 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial independent coverage as cited above. I'm not sure the CEO of a large multinational corporation like Dunkin Donuts would be considered run of the mill. Maybe you need coffee? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nigel Travis is the CEO of the second largest coffee chain (Starbucks is the largest) before that he was on the board of directors of two other corporations = a bit more than a "run-of-the-mill" business man. I agree perhapes you need some coffee. I will say that this article really needs improvement both in terms overall appearance and quality of the content in general.Nottoohackneyed (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andrew Radford (linguist). – Joe (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structure building model of child language

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

Article based on one person's theory, this is purely promotional content to either advance the theory or promote book sales. Serious COI issue here comparing the primary contributor to the references. And strangely, the only online reference is circular ("Introduction taken from Wikipedia entry..."). P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Andrew Radford (linguist) and redirect there. Yes, in its current state this article is problematic. But I'm amazed to read that "this is purely promotional content" -- what ever happened to "AGF"? Radford's book was standard in its day, and his general approach was and still is influential. How "structure building" differs from, or is part of, or subsumes, either "weak continuity" or "minimal trees" is something I don't remember well offhand, and I don't have immediate access to my shelf with three or more books that might well offer material that would remind me. Even if this were sorted out, the material wouldn't slot into First language -- which is where first language acquisition redirects (cf its still redlinked synonym child language acquisition) -- whose current coverage of nativist approaches concentrates on the premisses and not at anything more concrete. In the medium/long-term future there should probably be a standalone article on the structure-building model (not necessarily with this title) or similar, an article within which Radford's name would certainly be among the half-dozen most conspicuous; in the short term, it would be good if somebody with more spare time than I'm likely to have would bone up on such books as Barbara C Lust's Child Language: Acquisition and Growth and Maria Teresa Guasti's Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar and informedly augment the First language article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC) trivially reworded Hoary (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Radford's BLP. As Hoary notes, Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax was a pretty influential, but I don't think it's sufficient to support an article on the "model" per se. Cnilep (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus that the subject meets the WP:GNG, therefore whether or not he meets WP:NARTIST is irrelevant. – Joe (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Birtwistle

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

I cannot see... or find... anything to suggest that this individual passes WP:ARTIST TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's not notable in the traditional sense for artists. However he got some good press in RS for his "environmental works". Here's one in the Telegraph. Another in ArtDaily, and a blurb on "The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)".104.163.150.32 (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's not passing WP:ARTIST, as it usually a problem with environmentalists, unless it's Vik Muniz, but with references provided above, he can pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to United Nations COP conferences where Silas Birtwistle has exhibited work--Roylej (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Aaron Harris

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

A former executive officer at a US nonprofit. No indication of independent notability as required by WP:NBIO. I wasn't able to find any meaningful Google results for the person, either. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of an organization is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles a person to have an article just because he exists — but the article isn't reliably sourced enough (or even really at all, as the only "references" are a blog and a directly-affiliated primary source) to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We lack the quality coverage of Harris as an individual to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a split of opinion, but since her death, coverage in sources has expanded which means a sustainable article has become more likely since the AfD opened. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Falkholt

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Actress does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACTRESS. Was in a handful of episodes of a daily TV soap, and had almost zero coverage in independent sources prior to her involvement in a tragic accident. The sudden spike in notability is unlikely to be WP:SUSTAINED. Kb.au (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had initially tagged her article for notability, as it was mostly about, and created after, the accident. Then, I expanded it, hoping to find some degree of notability before the accident news spread. I found a few minor film roles and the future upcoming main one. I expect the latter to garner her some notice, as some post-death film releases do, but, until then, she's deletable. ~~Plus, I've currently grown tired of the "is she dead or isn't she?" revisions.~~ — Wylie pedia 15:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least semi-protect the page so that not anonymous IPs can edit for a while.DrKilleMoff (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate on why ?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although, I wonder if it could be redirected to her most well-known role, Hope Morrison? - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at this point. The circumstances surrounding the death of her family are quite horrible, but her career isn't of sufficient note to warrant a page - 16 episodes of a soap, and a role as title character in a yet-to-be-released film. If the film turns out to be successful, a page can always be created for her then. Chris Keating (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very sad matter, but the subject does not appear to satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete per above. Recreate if the upcoming film is successful. DigitalPanda (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete I was going to argue "keep", but the sad truth is that she would not have been notable except for this awful incident. I live in Sydney and Jessica is a friend of a friend. However I can name six personal friends with longer acting resumes, none of whom would pass the notability test either. Manning (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we dont compare notability betweem different actors. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, Manning isn't arguing that it shouldn't exist because articles on the others don't exist. They're highlighting the fact the subject has a very limited acting resume and that those with greater acting notability would not pass the notability bar either. Kb.au (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ - We most certainly DO compare notability among various actors. Nicole Kidman is clearly notable. My personal best friend who has 27 minor acting credits and has appeared in nearly 100 separate television episodes (including 11 episodes of Home and Away) is not notable, as he was not a featured performer in any of those works. Manning (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question there seems to be a pretty clear consensus on the biography, but would it make sense to have an article on the car crash/incident itself, given the amount of coverage it received? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I can't see why it would, for the same reasons I nominated this for deletion. It's a just an horrific event that received a blast of news coverage because of the nature of it, but has no lasting notability in itself. Kb.au (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep combination of acting appearances and tragic death create notablility. 70,000 readers of this article are interested in her too ...... which also points to notability. MurielMary (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NACTOR requires "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" which she does not have. 16 episodes of a soap and a yet to be released movie does not meet the benchmark. The accident was tragic but she is not dead so WP:BLP1E applies. DigitalPanda (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I predict a nasty blast against us from The Daily Telegraph et al, if we delete it before her funeral/the attention's flickered out. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't notable before the accident, so... Also, has there been a rash of WP-bashing articles lately, and why should that matter? TDT are the ones that pronounced her dead after life-support was ended. — Wylie pedia 02:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination is flawed. There are two events; being a TV actress and dying, and a misunderstanding of NotNews, which seems to be, "somebody appearing in the news means they must be kept off Wikipedia". Abductive (reasoning) 11:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See my previous comment. DigitalPanda (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Abductive, my view of the subject in relation to WP:BLP1E is that she was only covered in reliable sources in the context of the crash (per condition 1: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event"). There seems to be no coverage of her in independent, reliable sources prior to the crash; the only result I could find in the news media was an incidental mention of her in a Daily Mail gossip article about Pia Miller from May 2016. I'm unsure how my understanding of WP:NOTNEWS is incorrect. If the individual is not notable and the event has no lasting notability, the article is essentially just a breaking news story. Kb.au (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I still think deleting or redirecting to Hope Morrison should wait until after the funeral so we don't look crass and disrespectful. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and WP:BLP situation. Do we really need to inform the readers that the subject's surgery included "removal of part of her skull"? No lasting notability and disrespectful to the deceased. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting impact? Shes an actress not a scientist. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is very sad that anyone should think it appropriate to have made this nomination right now. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, her article was created after the accident, so, for now, it's sadly her only notability. "Inappropriate" would be in the case of a suicide. Her article is stable to be a BLP, but not notable enough to exist...yet. — Wylie pedia 11:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your comment but maybe you didn't understand mine. I think the nomination was not appropriate because it was likely to give rise to insensitive comments such as "until then, she's deletable". I had been reminded of a similar situation ten years ago where the AFD discussion was eventually blanked because of dreadfully crass comments (through thoughtlessness rather than malice). That article still exists and seems to be causing no difficulty. I won't link to it. Thincat (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of my vote, "she's deletable" is what you get twisted about? Perhaps you should check her page history (circa 12/29) and see who fluffed her article to give some semblance of notability, outside of the events of the past three weeks. — Wylie pedia 16:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trust I've seen short and one source articles worth deleting. This one is fine to keep as it is sourced effectively and does tell much about her. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has only appeared in one notable production, and not even clear if that was a significant role, so falls short of the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to Keep High profile soap in Australia and Ireland (and others) XyzSpaniel Talk Page 13:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough verifiable material to justify retention of the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Feel free to add material showing she has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". DigitalPanda (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- She has been the subject of considerable interest in the Australian media. I have received two breaking news alerts about her death and the BBC has covered her death. There is more than sufficient material to indicate this article is worth keeping. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People keep saying her acting career was short (it was and she would not be notable on that alone), but combine the acting career with the crash and that's two events. She clearly passes GNG and has some pretty major sources covering her death, just think in 500 years if historians were to build a biographical dictionary using major newspapers obits, Jessica would clearly get into it based on the level of coverage. GuzzyG (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be improved a great deal with time and this person has made headlines. Cexycy (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a significant role so fails WP:NACTOR. The crash she was involved in, terrible as it is, isn't particularily notable either -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The soap opera role was substantial, and 16 episodes, while not huge, is not brief either. She also has a major role in a yet to be released film. While normally we'd wait till that film is released, her accident and death have caused an unusual amount of advance mention of it in reliable sources, so it makes sense to keep this rather than to have to recreate it after that second important role is publicly viewable. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant role in Australia's longest running soap. Has a part in an upcoming film that is going ahead despite her death. The fact the the article was not created prior to her accident does not have any bearing on notability.--Dmol (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". One role, even significant, does not establish notability and 16 episodes of a soap is not significant. DigitalPanda (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention of her in the media before the crash. Even if the crash was tragic it goes under NotNews.DrKilleMoff (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability as one TV series and movie role doesn't qualify as "multiple" in my opinion. Unfortunately sixteen episodes in a very long running series is not quite enough to strengthen the case for Falkholt's notability. The circumstances of her death are tragic which is why I would wait a little while before deleting the article. smrgeog (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the upcoming movie and TV show, which are attested by secondary sources. This entire nomination is pointless, because her article will be reinstated in short order. No scalp for the nominator. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking at it coldly even the upcoming film won't be enough to meet the notability criteria unless she wins a major acting award and/or the film is a major success. If that happens, I would support the idea of keeping the article. smrgeog (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a few weeks in a soap opera, a film which isn't notable and a minor role in an upcoming TV show doesn't establish notability -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Abductive (reasoning) 07:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Role in significant and leading Soap opera in her country. That her article was created after her death is irrelevant to notability. WP:GNG is met so the nominator is mistaking. The cheer number of input in this AfD alone is quite telling.BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". 16 episodes does not meet the requirement and GNG is not met. DigitalPanda (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Famous in Australia. (Gabinho^>:) 09:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Information is information, history and time fervently just sporadically topples on over itself, very much like the cars did each other in this incident, a combined three scenario's, opiate epidemic, fame, and coincidence, along with a history lesson, just keep it organized, but she was famous, and there is a lesson in that poor girls whole family receiving death for Christmas.... -§Ferventtboundz

Ferventtboundz (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Rusted AutoParts 13:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments by User:Lugnuts. -Mardus /talk 14:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Really goes to show where the "notability" lies when almost half of the entire article is devoted to a few moments in the final three weeks of her life: car crash, surgery and death. But, then again, these are the subjects enough editors feel are important in the moment. A few people here believe it was "disrespectful" to nominate this for deletion but do you really believe Jessica (or anyone) would want a piece primarily devoted to the pitiful state she was left in as a result of the crash to remember her by? Sometimes, if you want to build an encyclopedia, you can't let stories that pull at your heartstrings influence you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she's known for three things: a recurring role in a soap opera, a major role in an upcoming film, and her tragic death. While each of these considered separately may not meet Wikipedia's notability standard. when viewed as a whole I believe they make her notable enough for inclusion. -Zanhe (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just a reminder to some that is is not a memorial site. Actors have be notable on their own merits. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. There are enough Google search entries the WP:V is also met. While death isn't a reason for creating an article - the way death occurred and the multiple number who perished is an additional note to consider. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appeared in a popular soap opera in episodes that totaled 400 mins, or about 5 feature films. Plus upcoming completed film role, that by some accounts is/was a major break in her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.35.10 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

— My ISP frequently and automatically changes my IP address. Please do not attempt to devalue my vote for this reason, or insinuate that I have made other edits within this topic, when I have not. Thank you and in good faith.

Soft Keep - just about passes notability in my view, but there has not been sufficient arguments made for deletion beyond the fact that her work was predominantly confined to one series. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think keep is the best solution here. Of course Wikipedia is not a memorial site. I understand that. But the movies to be released and her appearance in the soap that is very popular is an indication for notability. It may be weak. Perhaps a link out of the entries for the movies to come (people coming later will ask what did she do before e.g.) and the soap would justify the entry to be kept. Royalrec (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being in a crash and starring only in a TV soap is not enough. If this doesn't pass we might even see lots of random pages dedicated to random people who got coverage since they passed away in a crash --Sau226 (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is a bit weird, please explain exactly when BBC and other news services have devoted named frontpage news for weeks on a random car crash? Please do not make up stuff that is clearly not true, there is no chance of random people in car crashes getting on here. GuzzyG (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I felt maybe perhaps a revision, in which I don't think I presented my arguments tone correctly, maybe someone needs to write a sort of sub genre tab, for life instances, or make a page for Jessica falkholt who has an imdb page and sounds pretty damn famous enough to deserve to have a page to be known for the human she was, and that is the point of the amazing wiki library, and regardless of what that family wants, there is an even greater gain to society, within this beautifully devious life lesson, luring mistresses they can be...edit- I didn't know that something has to be famous to be recorded in "the free encyclopedia"(which I basically learned a novice in pharmacology, grateful) as long as it knowledgeable, and or interesting, and look at this beautiful page a collective of humans took to edit, seems like there was a lot to say about her, well if your gonna destroy that work, you look it in the face and tell it. I guess it all boils down to how promising her career was, but I'm from eastern U.S.A. and news of her death was front page first thing I opened my homepage to. btw someone should seriously pioneer that wiki sub genre tab.-fervy Ferventtboundz (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? — Wylie pedia 17:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also have an IMDB page. However I assure you I am NOT notable. Manning (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't compare careers or reasons for IMBD. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More information about her death than there is about her life. Jsderwin (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her role on Home and Away was NOT significant or notable. Home and Away cranks out 150 minutes of television a week, 40 weeks a year, and pretty much every actor in Sydney has appeared in it for a few weeks as a minor character at some stage in their career. For reference, a local actor I know (Paul Barry) appeared in eleven episodes of the show, as well as many other locally produced soaps, TV dramas and numerous TV movies. His resume is substantially longer than hers, but he is also not notable as none of those roles were "featured" or "significant". Manning (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What other actors does or does not are irrelevant. What another actor has done concerning career has no baring what so ever on Falkholts career. Notability is established here per references and career. And like it or not her accident and death has recieved both national and international coverage so is also notable.BabbaQ (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Paul get round the clock significant coverage in such major sources as the BBC? No, so OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the sole argument. GuzzyG (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many news articles Falkholt gets as Wikipedia is not news. Would she have gotten a single line in the media if it weren't for the crash? I doubt it. DrKilleMoff (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How someones career gets noticed is irrelevant. I could probably have created an article about her a year ago. The reality is that not every notable person gets an articke created about them before death for whatever reason. But the fact alone that her article was created after death and in connection with a serious accident is irrelevant to notability. And you are wrong about coverage, world media has covered her death, first of a clear indication of notability. Secondly, the world coverage is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of WP:SIGCOV internationally sparked by her death. It can be revisited in a year or two, when notability will be clearer. Or work based on her may have emerged. But I also wish to mention WP:RAPID. Before rushing WP:BREAKNG NEWS to Afd, take a deep breath, put it in a file, and return to the topic later. People who hear about an EVENT and turn to Wikipedia for information only to find a deletion template see us at our worst - and yet this is a moment at which new editors often decide to join the project. Rushing to delete articles in the weeks after an event happens is not only a waste of editorial time and energy, deletion of EVENTS turns readers off and squanders good will.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could had but you didn't, just because she wasn't a notable person in life. 16 episodes of over 6000 in a show that has lasted for 30 years and a movie which doesn't even haver been released yet does not make someone notable. Her other works exists of a short film and one extra in one episode of another Tv series. And you misread what I wrote. I wrote, "If it weren't for the crash she wouldn't have gotten a single line in the media".DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - with upcoming film and tv projects, this could be argued as WP:TOOSOON, but all signs indicate the productions will be released. This will most likely be closed as no consensus and can be revisited after the programs air and gain subsequent media coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash Anthems

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

Lack of notability. As with Thash Anthems II, I favour redirecting to the relevant discographt; I intended to nominate this at the same time as Thrah anthems II but fouled up. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrash Anthems II. TheLongTone (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I mentioned in the prior discussion, Thrash Anthems and Thrash Anthems II are entirely different situations. II had virtually zero sources outside of one announcing its existence. Not the case with the original, released 10 years prior, at all.

Lengthy AllMusic review.
Exclaim review.
Blabbermouth review.
Metal Hammer/Team Rock review.
Metal Injection review.
Rock Hard review (A long-running German print magazine - Rock Hard (magazine).)

Sources are reliable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, and are detailed and dedicated to the release. Meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple in-depth reviews in reliable sources meet WP:NALBUM #1. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay McQueen

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

Written like an advertisement, probably by someone close to the subject. No referencing, content only comprehensible for a very select audience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlymanjaro (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason given for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually Hawkeye gave no reason to keep this article. It lacks even one source that is an indepdent, secondary one that counts as a reliable source. Beyond that, the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the editor nominating an article for deletion to make a case for it. As to yours, it doesn't matter if the article is a stub, or has no sources. Rather, you need to demonstrate that there is no independent coverage in reliable sources. In this case, the article is far from being stub, it does have sources, although they are not cited properly, and independent, reliable coverage does exist. His role as a pioneer of an obscure sport adds to his notability, as coverage reflects more than routine coverage of events, and he has participated in world championships of his sport. ie competed at the highest level. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lack of sources does in the article does not equate to failing notability guidelines. He's undoubtedly a world class competitor, but in a decidedly minority sport. The coverage that exists largely backs up much of the content of the article, e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21]. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- I can't read the Spanish articles, but they seem to mention Mcqueen multiple times and may help establish notability. It debatable if he participates in a legit sport, but I don't see why he can't be notable as a stuntman. Of course the current state of the article is garbage, it needs a lot of work. Some sources seem to exist, but they need to be cited. Regardless of position, everyone who votes here should give some type of policy reason for their vote.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While article provide no incline citation, sources do appear in the article. As subject is active in minor sport, independent coverage do meet WP:SPORTSPERSON basic guidelines. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody explicitly contests deletion. Sandstein 22:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling artists in South Korea

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

Fails number 7 at WP:DEL1. The list is almost entirely unsourced and has been unsourced for several years, and even that few entries that are sourced, are from unreliable websites (like Insider Monkey), therefore no point of having an unverified article, where anybody can randomly change the numbers since they cannot be verified anyway, most of those numbers are original research, taken from fan forums, and IPs are changing those numbers at least once per day. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed WP:V ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, does this subject meet WP:LISTN or not? as for problems with numbers being changed, editors can place article on their watchlist or it can be semiprotected, to confirm the numbers references can be obtained from the music group/artist's wikiarticles, suggest that article has invisible words (only seen in wikiedit mode) that numbers have to be reliably sourced and are from those pages, anyway, suggest a rename to music artists, with a redirect. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 01:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there are ways to improve this article. The articles List of best-selling singles in South Korea and List of best-selling albums in South Korea appear to be better sourced and more up to date. So we could start with those sources in order to verify and update the info in this article. That being said, this article (if properly sourced) probably wouldn't provide information that's not already available in the other two articles. Would like to hear what others think. Lenoresm (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esh Family Car Crash

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

Although there was coverage of this in New York newspapers and one local radio/television station, the event was not a lasting one, nor does it of historical significance, so it doesn't really meet WP:NEVENT. It isn't being re-analyzed afterwards years afterwards, and is borderline routine, the exception being that most of the people killed were connected to a family. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A stunning tragedy for the Mennonite community, a quick glance at just the top of WP:BEFORE D1 on Google web shows thehindu.com, nbcnews.com, and the NYT. Without looking further, the first two hits on Google books were relevant, the top actually citing the NYT article,

Steven P. Carpenter (2014-12-31). Mennonites and Media: Mentioned in It, Maligned by It, and Makers of It: How Mennonites Have Been Portrayed in Media and How They Have Shaped Media for Identity and Outreach. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 34–. ISBN 978-1-62564-525-8. Retrieved 2018-01-04. The New York Times report opened with the words, "For years, John and Sadie Esh lifted up their Mennonite community in central Kentucky with mellifluous gospel singing. Their congregation of 20 families likewise embraced them when their son Johnny died and again when their house burned down." It later noted the family had recorded four gospel albums...
Liz Robbinsmarch (March 26, 2010). "Crash Devastates a Kentucky Family". New York Times. The Marrowbone Christian Brotherhood rallied around the Eshes four years ago when their grown son Johnny Esh was killed in a snowmobile accident in Ukraine, on a rare day off from missionary work, and again after the house fire in December. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

Unscintillating (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book reference might be okay for lasting, but the NYT article is part of the same news cycle as the other breaking news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it be possible to have this as a section on a new page on the Esh Family? I find it implausible that the crash would meet WP:NEVENT if the musical group isn't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my surprise, coverage does appear to be lasting. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So one singular mention in a book is lasting? Is there more? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LASTING is not met. A mention in a book doesn't seem enough of "coverage" either. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as WP:NOTNEWS. A mention in one book does not establish lasting coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear violation of not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and the family itself doesn't appear to be notable. Ajf773 (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for now. I have moved the article to Draft:Miss Diva - 2018 because it is likely to be suitable for inclusion in the future. – Joe (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Diva - 2018

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

Too early to be created. 333 -blue 13:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Hagennos (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hagennos. Ma'az (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space. I agree that it's too soon to have this article, but there's no need to delete material that will become useful in the near future. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unlikely to be independently notable and WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Callanecc, CSD G5: Created by a blocked user in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Technology Award

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional tone. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a noteworthy award. --Saqib (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib, This Award is initiated by Govt of Punjab, Pakistan and Information Technology University which is Public sector University. Please check in Google, many newspaper are mentioning it. The Award holder Nergis Mavalvala is mentioned in World's Top venues/newspapers because of her work in gravitational waves and Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory(LIGO) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA in 2017. --EShami (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Saqib. Not notable. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB

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

Article about small, unnotable, possibly defunct (company page being domain camped) company with no coverage in roughly 10 years. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hard to find good sources here, the company is by now definitely defunct, and I don't see the coverage brings us close to a GNG pass. The article was created and maintained by an individual with a stake in the project. Sam Sailor 10:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andean Cat Alliance

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

References are either press releases or broken links to what seem to be a directory listing. A WP:BEFORE only revealed passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Partnered with the Wildlife Conservation Network [22], and mentioned by the current IUCN report as the crucial agency in the species' conservation (the entire "Conservation actions" section is based on their work) [23]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up the dead links (there is a perfectly fine English version of their homepage, and WCN has various materials). - And no, being cited by the IUCN for the entire conservation program is not a bleedin' "passing mention". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing rising above the mention of passing mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well attested to have a leading role in the preservation of the Andean cat, as noted above and in Fiona Sunquist; Mel Sunquist (2014). The Wild Cat Book: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Cats. University of Chicago Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-226-78026-9. (English) and here and here (Spanish): Noyster (talk), 11:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-trivial coverage here (article is as much about the organization as the cat); non-trivial coverage here (interview about ACA rescue efforts for an urban Andean cat that they eventually relocated to the wild). Covered repeatedly in books [24], one of which (The Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids) says of the organization: "Over the past decade, field biologists working under the Andean Cat Alliance (AGA in Spanish—www.gatoandino.org), have contributed to advancing our knowledge on the ecology and distribution of this species", and "an international network of research teams" (can't see the full chapter in Google Books snippet view [25], so it's unclear how much more the organization is discussed in it, but this is more than just mention that the organization exists). Wild Cats: Past & Present profiles (not just lists) the organization in its chapters on felid conservation groups [26]. The Wild Cat Book: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Cats provides history about the founding of the organization, which is also not just a passing mention [27]. The journal of International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Species Survival Commission's Cat Specialist Group covers a joint Andean Cat Alliance, BIOTA, and WCN 6-month series of field surveys and their results (though I can't see the full article) [28]. Mentioned and/or cited repeatedly in journals [29]; haven't looked into the details. Nor have I searched under the Spanish name of the organization yet, since what's already turned up with an English search is sufficient to establish notability. WP:BEFORE was clearly not done properly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Dulwich#Schools. The usual compromise in a divided delete/merge situation. Mergers from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 22:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosendale Primary School

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

Primary school that received some news coverage about the opening of its library, but which otherwise does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into West Dulwich#Schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES primary schools generally don't have stand alone articles and this should be preferable to complete deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school is already named in the West Dulwich article and in List of schools in the London Borough of Lambeth and the two pieces of information about the library are not worth keeping. Tacyarg (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into West Dulwich#Schools as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - Nn primary schools are always merged or redirected to their "location" articles. –Davey2010^Talk 15:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems appropriate. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the vast majority of primary schools this one is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dara Quigley

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

WP:NOTNEWS & WP:BIO1E. Subject's claim to notability arise from being videoed walking naked down the street by the Irish police, and then committing suicide a few days later. This incident led to coverage primarily in May 2017. There doesn't seem to be WP:LASTING coverage or effects. Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This clearly fails the not news guidelines for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremey Penn

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

Fails WP:NACTOR various bit parts in a forthcoming movie and a couple of TV shows means he is a long way from meeting the criteria for the moment. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing of interest Domdeparis (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources.FloridaArmy (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage and references. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article gets the golden boot, I guess... Sandstein 22:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Championship Golden Boot

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

Completely unsourced and dubious, as from what I can see, cannot be found at the official website. It simply seems like a list of top scorers, which most of the annual tournament pages already track. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Staying neutral, but it's not at all dubious. It's type of WP:CALC doing exactly what nom has stated: copying the results from each season's article into one place. The sources are easily found there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point is simply that it is dubious a "Golden Boot" award is actually awarded for the Canadian Championship, as it cannot be found at the official site. If it is just a list of top scorers, it can be listed at the main page, which it already is in fact. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nom pointed out "Completely unsourced and dubious". We are not required to Goggle, and "dig through" different sources not in the article, to determine if unsourced calulations are correct. It might be correct that if there were 2 red cars, 2 black cars, a white car, and a pink car, in sources, we could provide the total of "Six cars of various colors". The rest of WP:CALC states: "...provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.". We would use a dubious tag anytime we saw an unsourced number presented or any content we couldn't verify. Dubious = questionable = how can we know if unsourced. I glanced at the article Canadian Championship and must have missed any mention there. It would seem that would be a good place if there are sources. I might agree it was not at all dubious if there was never content that was unsourced, biased, OR, POV, synthesis, or fringe theories presented in Wikipedia articles. I have a hard enough time because it appears broad consensus can support unsourced/undersourced/improperly sourced articles so there has to be a line on one where the content is pieced together. Otr500 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Canadian Championship. All of the information on this page is contained within that one. The Golden Boot does appear^[1] to be an actual award, so perhaps a note should be added to the top goal scorer table on the Canadian Championship. Flipster14191 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this "reference" is to a known Wikipedia mirror - a copy of this very article. That's not going to help. Kuru (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has been an award, but I'm still not totally convinced, as the link only provides a few seasons; perhaps it was discontinued similar to Toronto FC Player of the Year which was also deleted probably about a year ago, and merged into Toronto FC main article, but I'm noticing now it was since removed by a user on 23 October 2017. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Delete Per above. Merge into Canadian Championship but also need to add reference. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot: Delete as nom. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh soory! Since it is not an offical award, no reason to keep it, we need OR! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even sure if this is an official award, but relatively confident it is not notable given there is only ever a maximum of three games played per edition by any one club and the number of goals scored is minimal. Think it would be overkill to have the full table in the parent article either. Fenix down (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Iffy★Chat -- 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of Praise (Shame album)

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

non notable album by non notable band WP:TOOSOON Theroadislong (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tons of reliable sources[30][31][32][33][34][35]. — Za wl 11:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are blog reviews sufficient to pass WP:BAND? Theroadislong (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, and most of these aren't blogs. They're established publications and magazines. Paste Magazine, NME, Loud and Quiet and there are so much more that I didn't put here.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Zawl has provided reviews from NME, Clash, Paste and Loud and Quiet, which are all reliable sources – in addition, it's been reviewed in Record Collector [36], Q (Feb 2018 issue, p. 113), Mojo (Feb 2018, p. 91), and Uncut (Feb 2018, p. 32)... in other words, pretty much the entire British music press. Richard3120 (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many good sources and has been talked about a lot recently. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 22:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable via the coverage that exists, and which could easily have been found had WP:BEFORE been followed. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to not delete. Some suggestions to merge, but not enough to sway consensus. A merger discussion can be had independently of this deletion discussion on the talk page. Sandstein 22:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations

Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations

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

Previously on ER: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations.

I do not think it was possible to have a dispassionate discussion of this article during the election itself. Now it is over, I think we should revisit the appropriateness of having astandalone article on allegations which, as far as I can see, can never be tested in court due to the statute of limitations. Clearly it is valid to include these allegations in the biography of Moore, but it seems to me that we are over-covering this, given that it's included in his biography (in the context of his overall life and career) and in the article on the special election (in the context of its impact on the outcome). So I call WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But I saw it on the news, so it must be important! This can't possibly be described in any other article in an encyclopedic way; we need every painstaking detail about these living people because a ton of newspapers wrote about the exact same thing and we need to be "journalists" like them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus at prior AFD. Not undue or news given the significant and lasting coverage of the subject. James (^talk/_contribs) 12:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't consensus, it was basically a no consensus default keep right in the middle of the election. That was pretty much the point I was making, in fact. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the close: "[T]he consensus reached is to keep the article[...]the consensus here is to keep it." That was pretty much the point I was making, in fact. James (^talk/_contribs) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, it wasn't a consensus. As an admin of mroe than ten years' experience, I have closed enough AfDs to know the difference. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this should be procedurally closed. The Last AfD closed Keep a month a half ago. While I agree with the nomination - it should have been made half a year from now. I suggest that the nom withdraw the nomination.Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy supporting that claim. There has been a significant and material event: the election. If he had won, this would probably run and run, but he didn't. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DPAFD Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.. This essay Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, parses reasonable to be approx. six months for pure keep and two months for no consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a recommendation, if someone feels there is a legit reason to bring a new discussion, they still can do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- since this was covered extensively for an entire month, I think it goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. There is just too much content to merge into the Roy Moore article.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was national and international news for months. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As a content fork, this makes a lot of sense, just like with Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, etc. There is simply too much information here for it to be contained in the main article; it was taking up an inordinate amount of space, and splitting is how we deal with that.

Beyond that, the information in this article is relevant to Roy Moore, and I think everyone agrees that these allegations are notable and belong in the encyclopedia. (I will concede that others think this article goes into too much detail.) The question is whether it needs to be a stand-alone article. As such, NOTNEWS doesn't apply. And for a stand-alone article, I think this clearly meets the basic requirement of WP:EVENT: it has received significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.

Finally, I think this is exactly what an encyclopedia is for: a thorough and neutral accounting of what has been reported in reliable sources. If someone wants to know what's going on with all these accusations against Roy Moore, they shouldn't need to read through dozens of reports from different newspapers but rather should be able to turn to one source for an in-depth and neutral accounting, and that is exactly what an encyclopedia ought to do. -- irn (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AfD obviously, not entirely sure what nominative is hoping to achieve with this. Artw (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Roy Moore: excessive news-level detail that no one will think is interesting or important in 5 years. The important points can be covered in one or two paragraphs in the biographical article. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:N.Casprings (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having a separate sub-page on this subject is completely appropriate given the amount of coverage and publicity given to the allegations. This is an important page because it is not only about Roy Moore, but related to US politics in general, including elections and a wave of other similar allegations with respect to other famous people. Section Reactions is not really "Reactions", but "Significance". In addition, nothing really changed since the previous AfD two months ago.My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to general article on Moore. Wikipedia is not news, and nothing about these allegations requires a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Perhaps it wouldn't have hurt to wait to renominate later on down the road but I don't see this as a useful fork. It was clearly a major story but everything useful is in Roy Moore and United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017.LM2000 (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Sanchez Lamelas

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin. We do not have articles on everyone somehow involved in PR and marketing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 20:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Al-Hashemi

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

Fails WP:FOOTBALL as Al-Hashemi plays in the second tier of UAE's football league system and not the first tier which is required by guideline. — Za wl 10:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The player played in 2016–17 UAE Pro-League. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, played in UAE Pro-League in 2016-17, its just now the team has been relegated after that season. Still meets WP:NFOOTBALL

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

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

The result was delete. The category idea should be discussed more in-depth, because I guess any such category would be WP:NONDEF. Sandstein 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies and television shows released on UMD

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 10:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate material that promotes a deprecated media format. James (^talk/_contribs) 12:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia; any particularly notable releases on this format could go in the parent article Universal Media Disc (for first release, bestsellers, etc, and products where their use of the format is discussed in reliable sources that go beyond merely noting their existence). But there's no reason to have a complete list any more than there is to have a list of all films released on VHS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CATify (make it a category, then delete the list - Video games platforms (physical and digital) all have categories (and some have lists), and UMD is a format designed to run on a video game platform, so I think a category might serve the purpose of this information-collection better. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bryan (scientist)

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence that this academic has any claims to notability. The references are from his employer or references to acadamic books he has writtent. Nothing here supports notability and searches yeield nothing better. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Snow~~ keep per the last AfD just 18 months ago. I assume the nominator didn't notice it, since it cited several very clear claims of notability? – Joe (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is very poor. We need third party independent sources not stuff they wrote themselves. This reads like an advert and tries to make medical claims based on poor sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails as an academic. Assistant professor, not full professor. Prolific article author. I counted sixty-five articles, but nothing notable. As a book author, he fails, no reviews. Sounds like promotion for tongue scraping scheme. Rhadow (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup after trimming the spam from this article not really anything left. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are statements like "He received an undergraduate degree in biochemistry from the University of Texas at Austin", "he studies nitric oxide restoration in humans", and "Bryan is Co-Founder and Nitric Oxide Scientist at HumanN", spam, Doc James? To paraphrase the last AfD, the subject is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 based on the fact they have authored dozens of papers that have been cited over 100 times, including several Nature papers. In other words, there are several thousand third party independent sources have discussed his work. The fact that they are not currently cited in the article is no reason to delete it. – Joe (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is a ref like this spam https://www.humann.com/neogenis-labs/ User:Joe Roe? Did you look at the ref in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spam? It's a dead link on the subject's company's website – so what? Even if it were spam, I don't see how that justifies removing whole swathes of the referenced, uncontroversial biographical details, or deleting the page. – Joe (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup from a commercial website trying to sell a scam. And trying to use Wikipedia to promote said scam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments So the fact that they have published a book is presented as evidence that he is notable. I get dozens of requests to publish books. This is an active and well known issue within publishing. One of the publishers of one of his book "VDM Verlag" appears to be vanity press / running one of these publishing "scams".[37] Basically how it works is they hired "book finders" who are paid by commission. They take whatever an "author" submits and publishes without any editorial control. Than their are a bunch of libraries who buy in batches who make up their primary customer base and they do print on demand. The authors do it for vanity and get little money. As costs are kept very low and libraries agree to buy these the publisher can still make enough as printing books is simple so cheap. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly we do not have an independent source noting that they have published a significant book... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1, as argued at the previous AfD, with 22 papers currently having 100 GS citations or more. I cut a paragraph of promotional content sourced to an advertorial. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as last time. And if Rhadow had actually read the previous debate, he would have noticed that "assistant professor" is an inaccurate description of the subject, who is (as was already described last time) "an industry researcher with a courtesy title". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Substandard claims. Other than stating he's a scientist who happened to author or co-author 3 books, the article doesn't present any notability. Brandmeister^talk 23:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per XOR'easter - Morphenniel (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Add to the list my name of people that don't understand retrying the same case. A quick GS check shows >20 papers having >100 citations each...conclusive PROF c1. Is there some suspicion that those papers are from someone else with the same name or that there are some other such mitigating factors? I don't see that there are. Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per prior AfD. An acceptable and sourced stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am intrigued by the claims to notability from the publication of cited papers. Let us clear, the job of an ademics is to do research and publish papers. That is not a measure of notability. A bus driver does not become notable by driving a bus, neither does an academic become notable by writing papers. Nothing here suggests he is notable for his role in his field. I can still see no valid ground for asserting notability. Perhaps those wishing to keep could specify in detail which elements of the relevant notability criteria are met by which specific assertions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is important that someone clear-up your misunderstanding on this issue. Nobody is saying that publishing papers makes this person notable. Notability comes from the fact that his work (his papers) have been noted (cited), a lot. The heart of PROF criterion 1 (which is the spirit of several other types of notability guidelines, as well) is that a person is notable if their work has caused others to take note of it (any by extension, them) in a sufficiently conspicuous way. Citations are that indicator. Now, for this case specifically, Bryan seems to have >20 papers having >100 citations each. If you look at the corpus of intellectual citations through standard databases (mostly GS and WoS), that's pretty high and indeed exceeds our usually WP thresholds for demonstrating that PROF c1 has been satisfied. So, published papers and citations to those papers are very different. The first is not a basis for a notability claim, but the second is. And, in this case, the claim is easily satisfied. Hope this clarifies matters. Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maya (2015 Bodo film)

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

No indications of notability, third party coverage, or even existence (well, the last is presumably my non-Indian search bubble). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm also struggling to find anything to show it even exists. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a mention in a wordpress website listbodolist. The article List of Bodo-language films relies solely on this particular website/blog, the reliability of which has been questioned at WikiProject India. MT Train^Discuss 14:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Basumatary

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

No indications of the claimed "famous" status (for a role in a film that I believe is not notable in itself, Gwrbwni Mwdwi), or any other kind of reliable coverage. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything. This should have been speedy deleted as it seems to be made up along with the article on the film. Hagennos (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with User:Hagennos small time actor without any major credentials and no citations to support his claims. This article along with the film he was in both are ideal canidate for speedy deletion.Nottoohackneyed (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Gatward

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

Ugh, I don't have a good yardstick for manager bios yet... Available coverage seems slim to the point of nonexistence. Is he notable just by virtue of having been a BBC bigwig? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gwrbwni Mwdwi

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

Appears to be a non-notable niche market production without third party coverage. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No niche market, no critic reviews and no significant citations seem to exist Nottoohackneyed (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka Sakamaki

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre.

First AfD closed as "no consensus" based on the arguments along the lines of she's notable and seems popular in Japan; neither sounds convincing. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:BASIC, the references are mainly adult film databases Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Elaine O'Hara

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

Delete: murder case with no national or international implications or significance. One off article, created by editor with no other edits. Not every murder is notable regardless of tabloid headlines. Quis separabit? 06:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on continued coverage even as soon as this week in 2018. Clearly a case that has reached the level of where its continually covered by media. Good references in the article as well.BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG and, in particular, WP:LASTING. On the former, GNG is more than satisfied. On the latter, the case (and the defence's claims on the legal basis used to capture/use the mobile phone data) has already had a lasting effect. And could have further effect. Nationally. And potentially further afield. On the lasting effects already seen, the case led (directly and indirectly) to a review of the underlying legislation (the 2011 Act) and changes to how state agencies use the data captured under that act. On the lasting effects that may yet be seen (and have already been reported), the planned appeal claims are expected to be relevant to case law, precedent and the validity of the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 itself. (And any other cases which have already or may in future rely on mobile phone evidence captured by the Gardaí). The WP:LASTING effects already seen (the review of the existing law and how agencies rely on that law), and the lasting effects potentially in the offing (the potential impact to the Act itself) are both well reported. Though they hadn't actually been represented in the article, I have since added it. Guliolopez (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NCRIME. Long lasting and wide coverage. Also in British press - [38], and an American TV show - [39] - where this murder was the subject (which itself was covered - [40]). And of course very wide Irish coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Someone bothered to write a book about it - [41] (and there are quite a few book hits).Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with above, meets criteria. Ongoing appeal from this case could have broad ramifications for policing in Ireland.GeneralBelly (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelio Campos

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

Neutrality disputed, sources either all primary or of interviews; that is, no independent sources. Notability very doubtful. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 06:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was mentioned in the Washington post, briefly. Not much in the way of RS otherwise.104.163.150.32 (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stevan Ognenovski

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

This article, likely an autobiography, is referenced almost entirely by primary sources connected to the subject: the website he maintains, his recordings, his biography of his father. The few third party references seem to be dead links, and I don't see any indication that they would constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:V. Υπογράφω (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere PROMO for a musician sourced to Amazon.com, itunes, and self. Page has been tagged for multiple issues - sourcing, promo - for 5 years. A quick search for sources beings up so little that it's embarrassing to the project. Kudos to User:Υπογράφω for bringing page to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dean (magician)

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

No reasonable claim to notability (awards don't appear notable). Not covered in reliable secondary sources - all the sources I can find are trying to sell me his products. Many mentions in the Linking Ring but all trivial. PriceDL (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an advertisement, so violates WP:ADV.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While not the most scintillating topic to have a list on, this is a properly sourced and verifiable collection of information. This information could properly be presented in the article on the city itself, so it is permissible to have a freestanding article on the topic so long as there are sources for the freestanding topic. bd2412 T 00:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Traverse City, Michigan

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

The PROD rationale summarizes the situation succinctly: "WP:LISTCRUFT - a list of mayors of a ~14000 pop town is not notable." According to the last census estimate, that number would be closer to 15,500, but it's nowhere near the 140K claimed by the editor who removed the PROD. (There might be that many people in the full micropolitan area, which includes four counties, one other city and 12 villages.)

There's no evidence that the topic of the mayors of this city meets WP:GNG, so this list warrants deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 04:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- small town mayor is not a notable position. WP:NOTDIR WP:INDISCRIMINATE--Rusf10 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the seven listed forbidden things in WP:NOTDIR are you referring to? Which of the four in WP:INDISCRIMINATE? If you are going to quote a guide, show us a quotation, anyone can wave around words. --RAN (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are examples, it doesn't have to explicitly list mayors (or politicians). Wikipedia is not a directory of every person who has ever governed anywhere.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, just substitute in the words "popes and presidents" into the banned topics in the two guidelines and you can see why WP:NOTDIR WP:INDISCRIMINATE ban us from listing presidents and popes. --RAN (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that's ridiculous, if the members of the list met notability guidelines on their own (like popes and presidents), we wouldn't even be having this discussion. What is the point of maintaining a list of people who neither by themselves nor collectively have done anything notable?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- or better yet, Make a policy. We had this discussion about several towns in New Jersey that don't even elect a mayor. Rhadow (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge WP:Not paper Useful information. 130 years of informmation and you think its not important? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (for now) - I find it rather pointless to create a list article that is almost by definition, going to be sourced to a single source, a PDF from the city's website. On the other hand, an historic list of mayors is endorsed content for a settlement article per WP:USCITY, and this list is quite long, so perhaps it is a valid WP:FORK. Neither useful, or important, are criteria for having an article on Wikipedia; notable is. John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we are allowed to list the mayors in the article on the town and that list gets too large, we break it out into a standalone list. Also a standard almanac entry, which is a Wikipedia pillar. --RAN (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just create lists of totally non-notable people. As per WP:LISTPEOPLE, A person is included in a list if "The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement" & "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." The people in this article do not meet the notability requirement. It also say "In a few cases, such as lists of board members or academics holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness." (emphasis mine). Since no one on this list is notable, it should not exist. Also, find me an almanac that lists historical names of mayors for every town.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find me a general encyclopedia with every movie released in the US. --RAN (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about movies. Perhaps there are too many movies on wikipedia, but that's irrelevant. You made the statement that this is a "standard almanac entry", prove it.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- By my read of the law [42], the mayor of a city like Traverse City is a member of the council. The distinguishing feature is that the mayor is elected at large. The executive duties of the city are assigned to a paid city executive. So why are we arguing over this? Rhadow (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:LISTN and significant RS coverage not found. Only one member of the list has an article; the rest are non Wiki notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the entries have an article. The one is an interwikilink to a Wikidata item, d:Q47253231, created today for Moses Orville Champney. Imzadi 1979 → 02:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say that. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe linking to wikidata like that is standard practice (nor am I familiar with wikidata's standards for inclusion).--Rusf10 (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SPINOUT articles are not a function of notability. If someone objects to the spinout, the remedy is to unspin the article, and doing so is a content discussion that begins with a bold edit and if needed moves to the talk page of one of the articles involved. Unscintillating (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Unscintillating. WP:SPINOUT articles are not a function of notability. If someone objects to the spinout, the remedy is to unspin the article, and doing so is a content discussion that begins with a bold edit and if needed moves to the talk page of one of the articles involved. The argument about a list of non-notable movies is irrelevant and a fallacious Reductio ad absurdum or Straw man argument,. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and the WP:LISTN put forth by K.e.coffman. Spinout is not relevant in this instance, since the information should most likely have not been included in the city article to begin with, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: " As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and that is all this list is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. We don't need lists of every mayor of every county or division unless there are many notable ones, which in this case there aren't any. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somebody's bothered to upload this. What does it serve to remove this? Who is helped by it no longer being here? What people value WP for and brings them here is the information we have, not the information we have removed. Even if only a handful of people a year would have read this information, that is now a handful of people we would not be serving. What is the supposed upside to balance not serving them? This is not the kind of random intersection discussed in WP:LISTCRUFT - a mayor is a well-defined public position. Nor is this WP:INDISCRIMINATE - it's a systematic collation of a particular aspect of a town's history, usefully separated into its own page, so if anyone doesn't find it relevant it's not going to get into their way. So, to those who would delete, please do answer: who would a deletion benefit? Cui bono ? -- Jheald (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments above are convincing. The content is verifiable and there is plenty of local coverage of the mayors. While not each independently notable a list article is an appropriateway to handle the content which is notable in relation to the town but would be undue were it to be included in the town article. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are there and this is an appropriate and encyclopedic fork to be spun out of the parent article for Traverse City, Michigan. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." (where the rest of the sentence suggests that at their discretion, editors may limit lists to notable subjects). "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." - WP:N. In this case the position of mayor is notable, and the information is "a systematic collation of a particular aspect of a town's history" (per Jheald). --Enos733 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate fork of the Traverse City article, and as a non-outlier among the numerous existing lists in the subcategories of Category:Lists of mayors. It is content suited to the kinds of specialized almanacs (in this case, U.S. state government almanacs such as the Oregon Blue Book) that Wikipedia aspires in part to emulate. An alternative format worth mentioning is the approach taken by List of mayors of Tallahassee, Florida, which is a redirect to an expandable/collapsible list in the Tallahassee article. --TimK MSI (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waince Jatt

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

Previously PROD'ed and now recreated by someone who clearly lacked competence yet managed to format citations etc (see the history). None of the sources supported what was said and it looks likely to have been copy/pasted from a mirror of the originally PROD'ed article. Sitush (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--The snippets-view of the used refs fail to pick up any hit about the subject and I can't find anything other than trivial listing(s) in Raj-sources.Hits occurs in Dahia & Dhillon but they're unreliable.Winged Blades^Godric 06:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see sourcing here. Maybe an article could be made on the surname (if held by notable people) - but not in present form.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting Unscintillating's non sequitur, only one editor makes a reasonable argument for keeping, while everybody else thinks that this case is too low-profile to be notable. Sandstein 22:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC

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

not a notable court case, did not set any legal precedent and the case ended up getting settled out of court. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The case only received press coverage in New Jersey. The article talks about questions the case could have decided, but because the case was withdrawn it did not decide anything. Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More of rusf10's WP:OUTING breadcrumbs. Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment make absolutely no sense. Please stop trying to derail discussions.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:OUTING, "attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". Unscintillating (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read below, there never was an outing! The claim was just thrown out there as a distraction and you should have known better.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Trout Slap This is yet another staggeringly bad-faith nomination from an editor who has been persistently violating WP:HARASS / WP:WIKIHOUNDING since making this edit, where Rusf10 makes an explicit threat to target articles related to where I live, which has been followed by a pattern of bad faith AfD nominations, combined with a demented effort to violate WP:OUTING.
Rusf10 has nominated for deletion the following Teaneck-related articles as part of his campaign to get back at me: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker (Teaneck mayor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek (Teaneck mayor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank W. Burr (Teaneck mayor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett (Teaneck mayor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter (Teaneck rabbi), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil (another Teaneck rabbi), and now this one, all targeted based on his earlier threat. In not one of these nominations did Rusf10 comply with WP:BEFORE. It's not the only target of Rusf10, but it certainly appears to be a rather consistent and unjustified target. The overwhelming majority of these deletion attempts failed, largely because of the extensive referencing already in the articles and the additional sources available elsewhere, many of which were added to the article as further evidence of notability. If allowed to continue, this abusive deletion attempt will similarly fail, based on the scope and breadth of sourcing in the article and available elsewhere.
The fact that the case is a New Jersey case or that it was settled is not a valid excuse for deletion; the standard is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Even if we were to take the nominator's claim that New Jersey sourcing is an argument, this source from the nationwide advocacy group Public Citizen would certainly be anything but local, and it's already in the article. Rusf10 has routinely ignored the obligations imposed by WP:BEFORE and similarly fails here. The most basic search on references to the case in Google turns up this source in Editor & Publisher, which explicitly discusses the case, as well as mentions of the case in sources such as this one from the American Bar Association.
I'm not sure what the basis is of the belligerent animus from Rusf10, but this abuse of process needs to stop immediately. Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address these outrageous allegations. You cannot claim WP:WIKIHOUNDING on an article you have not edited in 10 years. If I were stalking you as you have alleged in the past, I'd be going after stuff you've recently edited. Claiming hounding & harassment on a article you last edited 10 years ago is nothing short of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. As for WP:OUTING this is even more absurd, I have not provided any information about you that you yourself have not volunteered in the past. Your name (as if it isn't obvious already from you username, even you admit this "As you may have guessed from my user name") and the town you live in as written by you on your userpage: [[43]] There is NO outing!--Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Comment- The source citizen.org (mentioned above) is the group Public Citizen which represented Gallucci in this case. Since Public Citizen was involved with the case it is NOT an independent source and cannot be used to establish notability. All other sources are local.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED impact. Settled cases are usually not notable unless there is such lasting impact or there is professional or scholarly comment on the case's significance, and that is missing here. The WP:GNG notability rests essentially on one New Jersey Law Journal article speculating on what the case might mean, speculations that were mooted by the settlement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eggishorn, if you want to get this article deleted, please nominate it yourself later and withdraw here. Participating here as you are doing is support for WP:OUTING. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a serious accusation of bad faith, Unscintillating. What evidence do you have to support it?

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The following diff is evidence of WP:OUTING on this page, as requested, [44]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, for the last time, there is no outing! If you disagree, that please take it to WP:ANI. In fact, I strongly encourage you to do so. If you don't, then please refrain from making comments about it.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, That diff is far, far short of what WP:OUTING actually says. If you think otherwise, then you should by all means stop talking about it here and immediately report it in the appropriate venue. Otherwise, it just creates the impression that you are using a policy as a distraction to pursue inclusionism against notability and content policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily keep as per WP:DGFA. Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn case that was settled out of court. The coverage is routine; no societal impact or lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this does not appear to be a notable case, in the sense that it has had no lasting impact and there is no real indication that it has had an effect in setting meaningful precedents for subsequent cases. Reyk _YO! 08:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G12. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donal McCann (organist)

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

Way WP:TOOSOON Ymblanter (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Blue

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject no longer meets WP:PORNBIO, which guidelines are quite tighter than it was during the first AFD four years ago. Also does not meet WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in any entertainment or porn sources The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2018 (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/2018 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails relevant notability guidelines and significant RS coverage not found. She was in two blockbusters movies her roles were minor. Only nominations and no awards, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines. My general sense is we have a lot of articles on non-notable pornographic film performers. We need significant review of our articles, we have far too many on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Morbidthought's analysis in the initial AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the last AFD, Starred in various best selling shows, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD result was "no consensus." Where are the reliable sources saying her role was more than minor? Appeared in a blockbuster is not the same as "starred in." As for GNG, no significant coverage by independent reliable sources is in evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, in addition to being a pornstar, she appeared in many productions outside the porn industry. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Besides, it meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 17:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Blue was not the the star of either of the two notable movies, she just appeared in them and no reliable sourcing that addresses in more than a passing way. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AO Tennis (video game)

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

Fails WP:NVG. The sources are only routine coverage or press releases. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE. Meets the GNG:

It's not out yet, but it has caught a bit of attention and should start to look better once it's released and reviews are written. JOE BRO 64 01:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources above, and countless others found in a simple Google search. Major sports outlets like Fox Sports are even reporting on it. The article is certainly in awful shape, definitely, but it's still notable, and considering it's coming out next week, there's reason to believe improvement will happen too. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Significant coverage in numerous independent sources across the world, as others have pointed out. Clearly meets GNG. Kb.au (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a clearly notable release; passes GNG, and will only increase with the release - I've also added the above references to the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino American National Historical Society

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

Blatant advertisement with a tone of an About Us brochure. No significant coverage to satisfy GNG found. Article created, maintained, and likely deprodded by massive sockpuppet ring. James (^talk/_contribs) 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - There are hundreds of results in google news, over 100 at newspapers.com[45], and many useful reliable sources at a plain google search. I agree there are strong NPOV issues, but I don't see an argument for deletion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I share the concerns over the promotional tone of the article - e.g. the lead "The Filipino American National Historical Society (FANHS) was created out of a need to document Filipino American history for succeeding generations. Before Dorothy Laigo Cordova and her husband Fred Cordova took up the task, there was a paucity of information available about the Filipino American community's history in the United States." - is horrendous. However this should be fairly easy to rectify and is not grounds for deletions - worst case this could be stubbed down.Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I toned it down a bit. I considered taking an axe to the list of FANHS Chapters out of DIRECTORY concerns - but left this in.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After researching, I too found sources and results on search engines such as Google and Yahoo!. I would echo the promotional concerns of James and Icewhiz. House1090 (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and thanks to the efforts of User:Smmurphy and User:Icewhiz, the promotional nature has been toned down.Jacona (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many, many high quality references can be found here Phillipine Star Search.Jacona (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://netlibrary.net/articles/Canadian_Championship_Golden_Boot

[1] ttp://netlibrary.net/articles/Canadian_Championship_Golden_Boot

[1]