Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 March	31 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Teachers

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

Topic does not meet notability standards. A Google search comes up with only this page and a Simple English wiki page. Jedzz (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm generally rather fond of articles on obscure political parties and factions (Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist–Leninist) anyone?) but this group, if it even exists, is so utterly obscure that WP:GOOGLETESTing didn't throw up a trace, let alone evidence that would count as WP:RS. I'd be delighted if someone can find evidence to the contrary, but I won't hold my breath. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above, subject lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Looks to me like Socialist Teachers is a group of members within a party? Meatsgains (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Meatgains says, it is simply a minor internal organisation in the Socialist Party (England and Wales). Considering the website is now dead, it must have been short-lived. Sionk (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Party simply is not notable. If someone finds to the contarary, maybe it would be better suited within an article for a party? (as per Meatsgains' comment) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Yamazaki

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

Soon to be football player who has never played and is not notable. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and subsequently WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:48, 1 April 2017 (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) 11:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY Spiderone 09:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - seems non-notable at this time, may change in future but not right now (WP:TOOSOON and/or WP:NFOOTBALL anyone?). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharika Raina

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

Not notable, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Aside from numerous articles of her marriage, few if any articles come from RS - mostly gossip pages and marketing sites. LovelyLillith (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we don't normally include articles about reality TV contestants unless they win, or subsequently/previously have a notable career. Sionk (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Sionk. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Onwazu Okonji

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

No reference to verify BLP. scope_creep (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry that was a mistake. Withdrawn by nominator

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife (band)

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

Brand new band. Not notable as yet. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Refs made up of a mix of blogs and music sites. No mention of Soundcloud, Spotify, Napster. Possibly WP:Toosoon. scope_creep (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources currently in the article are blogs and random music websites. Though possibly this 'review' might be considered reliable with editorial control, it is largely a quote from the band. Fails WP:GNG, probably WP:TOOSOON. Sionk (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Association for Nude Recreation

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

Reads like an advertisement, all of the sources come from just their own website. Fails WP:NOTPROMOTION ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, because nomination does not state a valid justification for deletion. "Reads like an advertisement" is not one. It has been tagged for that, although frankly the article does not seem particularly promotional to me. It is a major organization, the largest of its kind in the U.S., and is clearly notable IMHO. --doncram 22:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTPROMOTION is a valid reason and I'm sorry that you don't see it that way, but it is. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick WP:GOOGLETEST throws up a few articles in the national press and many articles in the U.S. regional press. For instance: [1]; [2]; [3] and [4]; [5];[6]; [7]; [8]. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION but Doncram is correct in pointing out that "[r]eads like an advertisement" is not per se a reason for deletion if the article can be edited to remove the "advertising" and has notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refik Zamanalioglu

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

Slim sources for first chair violinist. Don't think there is enough to supply notability for BLP. Fails WP:BIO. Could be wrong? scope_creep (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources come no where close to showing passing any of the notability guidelines for violinists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only source that appears to have any notability is [9] but they are his employer and not independent by any means. Agree with scope_creep, fails WP:BIO at this time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spring High School stabbing

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

This article has been listed for merger with 0 participation since January. Article does not meet the guidelines for criminal events at WP:CRIME. John from Idegon (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be quite a lot of coverage not yet in article discussing this brawl both in the context of Hispanic v. Black ethnic tensions that led up to it, and as coverage of school, community efforts to mend the problems in the years after the attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in general, I dislike merging notable crimes into school articles because it tends to give WP:UNDUE weight within the overall coverage of the school.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Greg. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Greg. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources, and per the fact that the article needs expansion of sources and improvements overall. But those reasons are no reasons for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S4U

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO. No entries Discogs, Spotify nor Napster. Only 289 listeners on Soundcloud. Simply not notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment S4U do have a presence on Spotify, here's their EP on the service. Furthermore, SoundCloud streams aren't a good gauge of importance nor notability because some bands point to it more than others, you can be utterly non-notable with tens of thousands or concrete notable with ten. Reliable sources for bands would be newspapers, books, established magazines and websites, national radio and television coverage, and so on. KaisaL (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNOW. Despite my comment above, I don't think S4U meet the threshold yet, but that could change within years, maybe even months. The initially coverage at The 405 and Noisey is promising, and they also premiered a song at Clash Magazine. However, this is common for countless new bands and the coverage isn't sustained nor exactly lead material. Also, the article creator Lucian Tackle seems like a conflict of interest case because Google searches point me to Sälen, who are associated with S4U, and a Facebook account that's only a fan of S4U. Maybe management or a band member's alias, but either way there's likely some degree of that going on. KaisaL (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Farah

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

Fails WP:ATH. Zero sources in article. It's easy for me to find images of him, not so easy to find WP:RS. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a subject's own website is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Mr. Guye, and Johnpacklambert, link to own website is not enough to establish notability, no WP:RS. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Wars (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and definitely WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG courtesy of multiple reviews in reliable sources: [10], [11], [12], [13]. --Michig (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please note that this is the latest in a series of nominations and a protracted discussion over the encyclopedic nature of discographical information related to Unwed Sailor; further discussion from myself and the nominator is present at Talk:Unwed Sailor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Ox, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firecracker EP. At no point have I gotten any indication that the nominator is considering WP:BEFORE prior to these deletion nominations, and I don't know what his WP:HEY standard is for retaining the information. Chubbles (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not part of a protracted anything. Stop character assassinations. I searched and found nothing other than the AllMusic ref. And I nominate non-notable recordings. I'm fine to withdraw my nomination based on Michig's findings though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Futsal at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' qualification

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

Duplication of material within existing article Futsal at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics and 2017 AFC U-20 Futsal Championship Nimrodbr (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion rationale is incorrect, as this article contains much more information than the others. I'm not sure about the notability of the specific subject of this article, but then again, the deletion rationale doesn't even mention notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS. Cannot see how the qualification tournament for a youth competition is notable, especially when very few of the competing teams have their own articles. Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per NOTSTATS Spiderone 09:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I can see no reason why a minor qualifying event (even if major within that narrow contest) meets WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Nomination withdrawn, per nominator's comment below. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mami (rock opera)

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

~~Notability questioned for nine years, no sources. South Nashua (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew Wikipedia has a much better article, unsurprisingly. It has this news ref, this and another apparent RS without a link. Readable for non-Hebrew speakers via Google Translate. This does seem to me to meet GNG, whatever the state of the article. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that while the stub has been around for a while, no one thought to add it to anyIsrael music or theatre or years categories. I've done so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: Thanks Shawn, wasn't aware. If something can be cleaned up, it shouldn't be deleted in my book. And from the sounds of things, this can be cleaned up to an extent I was not aware. I'm withdrawing my nom. South Nashua (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Jahanzeb

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

Bishal revenger (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is your username. And...? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has also placed a speedy deletion tag, claiming in part that this is a hoax, which given the outcome of the first Afd, seems unlikely. It resulted in deletion but not because the person didn't exist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London independence

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

The article was probably written more as of a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek and an anti-Brexit article started shortly after the 23rd/24th June 2016 and largely written from July to September 2016 (the time of the year when British University staff and students typically have (or about to have) their Summer holidays, or otherwise have their time off at home with Mum or Mum and Dad after graduating (or otherwise finishing Uni)!), and probably edited by some British political science professors, lecturers or students! London Independence (or, Cities of London and Westminster (together with the Inner and Middle Temples), London and Greater London (together with Middlesex) Independence) is always feasible and a serious option...until the next terrorist attack, which duly happened (in London) as expected and without fail, and on the 22nd March 2017! Anyway, without making too much distasteful light out of Terrorism and terrorist attacks, as my humble suggestion, can it perhaps just be merged into the article on the Aftermath of the 2016 Brexit Referendum?! This (and the topic behind the article) is obviously more of a joke, and non-British editors obviously don't quite really get (understand) English humour and the English sense of irony! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 11:26 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Speaking of something that must be a joke, why on earth did you add this Afd such deletion sorting pages as Oceania, Caribbean, South America, Islands, etc? It's disruptive - and I see you were blocked for disruptive editing rather recently. So please don't do that again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has chosen to write an essay about how he feels about the topic, rather than address the issue of notability. In looking at the variety of coverage in Gnews, there seems to be more than enough to meet GNG, as a concept or aspiration. It doesn't have to be feasible or advisable, it simply needs to have be sufficiently discussed in independent reliable sources and I think it has been. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are lots of sources about the idea of London independence, many of which are from before the referendum (I recently added two from 2014, for example), so it is clearly not just something that lasted for a few days. There is plenty to say about the issue; see the talk page for a longer list of sources. N Oneemuss (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It may be a mad as a bag of badgers but it is covered by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Ridiculous and puerile rationale not worthy of discussion. This topic is covered in depth in multiple independent published reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a real discussion/concept widely covered in reliable sources. The idea of London achieving the same status as the four UK "countries" isn't even particularly radical/unrealistic in the medium to long term. --Tataral (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I fact, it seems to me that this article could even be added as related item in See also at Countries of the United Kingdom? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump Prophecy

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

The article is presented in essay style without indication of an actual existence of a "Donal Trump Prophecy". It lacks notability as such and is on the border line to soapboxing. Jake Brockman (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for too many reasons to count. Its basically an essay chock full of original research and synthesis. The vast majority of the "sources" being used are either Youtube videos or social media posts, neither of which can be used as reliable sources. As the nominator pointed out, there's not even any evidence that a "Donald Trump Prophecy" even exists as a notable concept. The whole thing is just a messy personal essay on a completely fringe subject. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redundant content fork of Donald Trump and poorly sourced essay. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty clearly fails NOR, NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, POV. Time to SNOW close. No possible reason this should be kept. South Nashua (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prophesy rapid deletion of this WP:OR. WP:SOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written essay. No encyclopedic purpose. AusLondonder (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the author I say "too many reasons to count" is no reason at all, and "fringe subject" is anti-Christian bias. I quoted 5 well known Christians serving in well-established Christian organizations with 13 references, all of which are dated before election and verifiable. Since their predictions have proven true, it should be reported. There is no reason to hide such information. You may dislike my "essay writing" and you may dislike the fact that God spoke through His representatives, ahead of the most important election, about the most powerful man on earth, but that in no book or encyclopedia qualifies as fringe. It is a part of human knowledge that must be captured and shared for posterity. The few of us in this echo chamber know it will not happen through Wikipedia, as verifiable Christian sources have been dismissed as "hoax" and "fringe" and if I were to provide more reasons you will flag discussion as "editing war". Please delete it so I can show Christian ministers that their accurate predictions are considered "hoax" by Wikipedia editors. Let's see if their millions of followers will agree with the few who hold the editorial switch in this forum. To Wikipedia Admin: there are people who would love to fund you more when you stop your editors from heavy-handed editing and deleting based on personal and religious bias. The fact that you have "Christianity Proposed Deletion" and no other religion deletion category speaks for itself.

@McCardleDavis: Firstly re "The fact that you have "Christianity Proposed Deletion" and no other religion deletion category speaks for itself" - please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam. Secondly re "the most powerful man on earth" - please see Vladimir Putin. AusLondonder (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and many more. --Joshualouie711^talk 15:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above (and nom) -TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Bbb23 per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Willson

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

WP:BLP, parked almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable ones, of an actor with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. The notability claims here are that he won an award at the Hamilton Film Festival (a minor festival whose awards don't confer a pass of WP:ANYBIO in and of themselves) and that he appeared in Arrival (in which he played a minor supporting character who doesn't even have a name, not a leading role.) And the sourcing here is mainly primary sources and directories that cannot assist an actor's notability -- and even the few real media sources mostly just namecheck his existence in coverage of other things, with the only source that's genuinely about him being in the context of his choice of recipes for feeding his infant son rather than in the context of a notable career accomplishment (and even it reads like the introductory description of him was copy-pasted from his own public relations bumf rather than being written by an independent journalist.) As always, an actor is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage, verifying one or more accomplishments that actually satisfy NACTOR, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The gift that keeps on giving

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

This article is about an advertising slogan. It has no sources and has been marked with cleanup tags since 2012. A notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands# The gift that keeps on giving failed to bring any improvements. This is a worthless stub that could be recreated if significant content can be found. Felsic2 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any reliable sources to allow this article to meet WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's quite easy to find sources for this such as this. The topic might be merged into another page but, as the slogan was used first by the Victor Talking Machine Company and then for many years by RCA, it seems better to keep it separate. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: That's not a reliable source - it appears to be a one-person blog entry. Interesting, but unusable. It doesn't even cite any usable sources. Felsic2 (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this article is not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the phrase, in context of the slogan for Victor/RCA, does come up in searches, the results are not substantial and not reliable. As mentioned already, the source that Andrew D. brought up is not a reliable source, as it is an individual's personal blog. The other sources that come up are either similar to this, or are archives of the actual ads themselves. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B Chandrakala

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

No significance importance as well as subject may not meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria as per SIGCOV. The person is news mostly due to controversies which is not sufficient to meet the notability criteria even as per WP:GNG. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Previously the article was deleted as per AfD discussion which is archived here. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable administrative officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence of notability can be found. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above and fact that it was already a part of an AfD discussion which closed as delete (I obviously cannot view the old deleted version but judging by votes and explanations, it has not changed much). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Saint-Bruno mid-air collision

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

Not notable small plane crash with noone notable involved. WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fairly common training aircraft accident doesnt appear to be particularly noteworth for a mention in wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not necessarily create or maintain articles about every aviation safety incident that happens at all; we create and maintain articles about notable incidents that can be shown to have a reasonable claim to satisfying the ten-year test for enduring significance. For example, there would be grounds for an article if this leads to major future revisions of safety procedures for pilot training or air traffic control, or if it could be shown to garner extended coverage over a sustained period of time. So I'd be willing to reconsider this if sourcing dated past March 18 could be shown — but the immediate blip of same-day coverage of an accident that just happened is not enough in and of itself. If two passenger jets collided over Saint-Bruno, the notability would be apparent — but there's nothing inherently encyclopedic about a collision between two single-pilot Cessnas. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mid-airs between two light aircraft are rarely notable enough to reach the notability threshold. This one falls well short. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, not notable.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Snowdonia helicopter crash

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

Not notable small aircraft crash. WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:RUNOFTHEMILL light aircraft crash. No indication this was anything other than the weather-related crash of a light aircraft, a daily occurrence worldwide and no more notable than a car accident in which five people died. No indication of any lasting effects here, no indication of any wiki-notable people involved, no indication of changes to airworthiness procedures or ATC procedures, no indication of any lasting effects. The news media pounce on this just because it involves an aircraft, but this is covered under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I created the article and Ahunt makes some good points. The aircraft was lost on radar over the Caernarfon Bay but found quite far inland, so has an interesting angle to it. That said, if deletion it is; so be it. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Ahunt explained not a rare event so really needs something different like a change in regulations or involvement of somebody notable to pass the bar which this doesnt appear to have, sad event for those connected but not encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Eurocopter AS355. This is non-notable event and can be covered in the helicopter article if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Ahunt, the incident does not comply with the WP:AIRCRASH criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Temporarily at least. There is something peculiar with this, where an aircraft is lost over the sea (and sparks a sea search) then is found well inland. Especially as the plausible diversions would have been on the coast. I do not know if this will prove to be unusual and complex enough to make this article notable (otherwise I'd agree, it isn't). If it proves not to be, then delete it in the future. But for the moment, I'd keep the article until we know more. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any merge to the type article, unless investigation turns out some systemic fault in the type. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Andy Dingley on not merging - nothing notable to merge here at this time. It does not make the inclusion criteria to be mentioned in the type article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Looks like (BBC Radio 4, 6pm) the last radar contact was still over land (so they simply crashed into high land in poor visbility, rather than returning from over the sea with any sort of gross navigation problem). No reason given why there was initially a sea search. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it turns out to be extraordinary, the article can be recreated with emphasis on the relevant details but delete for now. If we wrote up every event which was slightly puzzling, WikiP would be overwhelmed.TSRL (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it turns out that someone on board was a notable figure. This event is as worthy of inclusion as any five-casualty car crash. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coastguard article was kept. Don't be so disrespectful to Irish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.57.52 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not about being disrespectful to Irish people. The coastguard crash has a different complexion to it. I mixed up the rules to train crash with WP:AIRCRASH. Unless something amazing comes along to make it notable, then it fails under the guidelines. As Andy Dingley points out above, the mystery with the radar has been cleared up. Sorry. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article. One of the dead was an acquaintance so I did my best to make this article worthy. Here in Ireland it's all over the news so please keep it for now, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.57.52 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry for your acquaintance, and it was a worthy and good attempt. However, it was as these things go a minor crash, and there are many places other than Wikipedia where a memorial site can be preserved: it's not our function. For now, this is not a suitable topic for the encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The crash is unfortunate, but Wikipedia is not the place for memorials for everyone who dies. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than a major crash, or at least in Ireland it is. At least leave it for tonight as it is still a developing story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.57.52 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will go on for a minimum of seven days before a final consensus is arrived at, so it won't be deleted too quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment It won't dissapear tonight, this discussion will only close seven days after the nomination (unless the consensus to delete is overwhelming, then an early "snow close" may occur). In any event, even if it were to be deleted it can be restored if it becomes notable later. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The BBC have released the names of the people involved and it seems confirmed that these are not people that we have Wikipedia biographies on. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Imagine, for a moment, a world that doesn't revolve around aircraft geeks. In this world, people's experiences and emotions do not correspond with a prescribed set of fastidious criteria. Instead, a culmination of records help tell the story of the human experience over time. This world is the real world, and these records exist as the media. WP:GNG should always take precedence over WP:AIRCRASH and as it stands, this event meets general notability guidelines (outside of the realm of aircraft geeks). If it turns out that the current significant coverage of the event does not last, then this discussion should be held. This AFD is a case of WP:RAPID. --NoGhost (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have articles on every car accident in which anyone dies? How about boating accidents? Bus accidents? Skateboarding accidents? Do you know why we don't? Because, like light aircraft accidents, these happen everyday and because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every accident. That's why each topic should be judged on its merits against the general notability guidelines. Some car or boat or light air accidents may be notable due to the relative impact, something that WP:AIRCRASH does not even come close to capturing. At this point, the event is generating significant coverage and the gauge of notability should be to be assess whether this coverage is sustained over time. --NoGhost (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been seven days since the accident and, as is always the case, after the first day or two the news media have moved on and there is no lasting coverage of this story, because there is nothing new to report. It is worth noting that this was just a local UK story - it wasn't run by media in places like North America and it also wasn't run by the global aviation media. These three factors all point to the conclusion that it was just a local news story with no lasting significance. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, it's a large-ish helicopter, but none of its occupants were notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Without this factor, the accident misses the notability threshold. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If crashes like this were notable, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force would be its own WikiProject. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 00:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sMerge to Snowdonia since this is about the history of the park. An itemized list of disasters occurring in the park can be added to the park article. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shida Night Market

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

Non notable place. L3X1 (distant write) 23:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - night markets can be notable (see, e.g., Carbon Market), but most are not, and this one seems to fail WP:GNG. If somebody can find better sources, I'd change my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
Comment: Article at zh:師大夜市 (bad translation) suggests that there's some notability, either of the markets individually or of the business district that they're part of. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Buchan, Noah. (2008-10-04). "The faces and spaces of Shida. A mostly residential district between two of Taiwan’s premier universities, Shida offers a traditional morning market for locals and a lively night market for the university and office crowd" (pages 1 and 2). Taipei Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2017-03-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Spreading through the alleys and lanes that branch off from the east side of Shida Road (師大路), just down the street from National Taiwan Normal University (台灣師範大學), is a grid of street stalls, boutiques, restaurants and family-run stores commonly known as the Shida night market (師大夜市). Though it may not be the largest or most famous of the city’s night markets, it is perhaps the one that best encapsulates contemporary Taipei in all of its glitz, rapid change and frenetic activity.
  The Shida area has changed significantly over the past few years. Once home to mainly mom-and-pop vendors, Longquan Street (龍泉街), the night market’s main pedestrian thoroughfare, is today seeing these older shops replaced by trendy clothing and jewelry stores catering to the university students who make up a sizeable portion of the night market’s foot traffic. Though many landlords have raised rents to upwards of NT$100,000 per month for small storefronts in the lanes between Shida Road and Longquan Street, new cafes, fashion outlets and beauty salons are constantly appearing.
  ...
  Because Shida’s night market is close to a university that teaches Mandarin to international students, it is only natural that foreign restaurateurs are increasing their presence in the area. Biff’s Pitas at 9-3, Ln 49, Shida Rd (師大路49巷9-3號) makes tasty and inexpensive burritos and pitas using fresh ingredients. Walk two minutes south from Biff’s to 51, Yunhe Street (雲和街51號) and you’ll find Maryjane Pizza, which serves satisfying thin-crust pizza. There are even several burger joints, most notably KGB: Kiwi Gourmet Burgers, at 5, Ln 114, Shida Rd (師大路114巷5號), which also stocks an array of hard-to-find Antipodean beers and local microbrews. For dessert, check out Dancing Cows (搖滾牛冰淇淋), 66 Longquan St, (龍泉街66號) for its premium American-style ice cream sold in a huge array of flavors, of which I personally recommend Oreo.
2. I-min Huang, Peter (2016). Linda Hogan and Contemporary Taiwanese Writers: An Ecocritical Study of Indigeneities and Environment. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. pp. 30–31. ISBN 1498521630. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The book notes:
  
  In addition to the Shihlin night market, one of Taiwan's oldest night markets that is facing extinction or transformation beyond recognition is the Shida night market. In “Shida vendors allege development scheme” (2012), Yan-chih Mo writes about a protest by locals in response to the recent government declassification of it as a "night market" to allow the government to open the area to bids by corporations to privately develop the real estate on which the Shida night market stands. Several city government officials and several representatives from construction companies (as well as a handful of local residents) attempted to shut down the market by arguing that their "city rebirth" development project would bring greater prosperity to the community. As part of this rhetoric, they also argued that the night market was compromising the "moral and environmental purity" of the area (Shida district) (2). In "Development fever takes over Shida" (2010), an opinion editorial, the authors voiced people's criticism of the Taipei City government's intentions to close down many of the vendor businesses in the Shida night market on the basis that the vendors were violating codes and had been doing so for "more than two decades." The authors argue that large corporations in Taiwan routinely egregiously ignore residential and business zoning laws, and they do so with far more impunity than do local vendors. They ask why the government scrutinizes small night market vendors for illegalities while turning a blind eye to the cases of similar violations by large corporations. The reason reason for the criticism of Taiwan's night markets, as Mo intimates, is that they are located in the heart of the city on extremely valuable real estate that corporate global industrial and commercial development are hungry to acquire, and that these developers are pressuring the government to sell the real estate to them.
3. Keeling, Stephen (2011). The Rough Guide to Taiwan (2 ed.). New York: Rough Guides. pp. 89–90. ISBN 1405382872. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The book notes:
  
  Shida Night Market 師大夜市 (shīdàlù yèshì) Taipower Building MRT Station. An eclectic mix of fried chicken, crepes, burritos, Chinese, Indian and Thai influences; most of the stalls and restaurants line Longquan St parallel to Shida Road from Lane 50 to Heping Rd. Lantern Hot Stew (燈籠加熱味; dēnglóng jiārè lŭwèi at no. 52 is the place to try lŭwèi: select meat and vegetables first, then wait while they're boiled in a tasy broth (big plates NT$130).
4. Lin, Ed (2016). Incensed. New York: Soho Press. pp. 261–262. ISBN 1616957344. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The book notes:
  
  I am well-acquainted with the neighborhood because of what the Shida Night Market has been through. It was once a bustling affair, not as big as the Shilin Night Market, but certainly a major competitor. A few years ago, developers began to buy up land around the night market and lobbied to rezone blocks to residential from commercial. The Taipei government removed Shida Night Market from city-produced tourist maps, a move that both hurt business and fulfilled the developers' allegations that the market was on its last legs. Inspectors from the Taipei Department of Health descended and shut down businesses, citing the flimsiest of excuses, including decades-old signage that was now deemed "inappropriate" because they were too big or too small or too colorful.
  The writing was on the wall when the government shut down Phoenix Noodles, an eighty-year-old stew stall. The guy who operated it was known to all as "Old Uncle" and he was a complete asshole. He was grumpy as hell and apparently ancient enough to have been the original proprietor. When I think of him, all I can see is a shock of white hair and furrowed white eyebrows. Phoenix Noodles was nearly a block long and featured a giant horizontal honeycomb of ingredients on display in a wooden and metal cansisters—some on ice, others over a fire. Fish-meal balls in liquid. Curls of dried fungus ready to unfurl. Chopped-up meats. His broths, varying from spicy to mild to sour, were hidden in vats under the counter.
5. Christensen, Matthew B. (2015). A Geek in China: Discovering the Land of Alibaba, Bullet Trains and Dim Sum. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing. p. 135. ISBN 1462918360. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The book notes:
  
  The street market near the Taiwan Teacher's University, the Shida Night Market, is also a popular venue.
6. Iwabuchi, Koichi; Tsai, Eva; Berry, Chris, eds. (2016). Routledge Handbook of East Asian Popular Culture. London: Routledge. pp. 247–248. ISBN 131728500X. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The book notes:
  
  The Shida night market area, which included Underworld, was originally an educational zone formed of numerous lanes, alleys, and old apartments. In 2011, the area became a place not only where most of the city regeneration cases were targeted, but also a place with the highest housing prices in Taipei. Therefore, urban public spaces were continuously being turned into private properties (Huang 2012). Not only did new residents surge in, the number of stores and shops also increased substantially. Within three to four years, the number of stores had increased from 200 to 700, with housing prices and rents rising unceasingly. The middle-class residents refused to bear their deteroriating living standards and subsequently formed the "Shida Self-Help Assembly" (師大自救會) to push the government to clamp down on illegal stores (Lou 2011). Underworld was designated as one of these stores.
  ...
  Meanwhile, conflicts evolved within the Shida night market area and did not cease, which resulted in stores continuously closing one by one. One June 15, 2013, the landlord of Underworld could not bear the pressure from the Shida Self-Help Assembly and the public, and decided to discontinue the lease. By then, Underworld had formally passed into history, along with the legendary subcultural music scene it represented.
7. "抗爭過後　師大夜市現在長這樣..." Apple Daily. 2016-07-19. Archived from the original on 2017-03-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The article notes:
  
  師大夜市為台北市著名的觀光夜市，經歷過居民抗爭商家陸續移出後，現在的師大夜市商圈冷清許多，像原本平價服飾店多的雲和街，空租狀況嚴重，當地房仲指出，餐飲商家移出後，人潮驟減，連帶影響到無油煙問題的零售業，續租率不高，商圈萎縮招租困難。
  師大夜市原本商家高達700多家，但從2012年區域居民開始抗議夜市噪音、油煙問題，幾番協調下商家開始搬離，人潮驟減，中信房屋大安新生加盟店店長戴龍祥表示，餐飲商家向只能在師大路、龍泉街之間的商業用地開業，租金行情每坪約在5000~1萬元，因知名餐廳撤出後，人潮多少受到影響，不少攤販轉型為店面或異國美食等，盼商圈復甦。
8. 張鈜閔 (2015-11-28). "同樣經歷住戶抗爭　師大夜市「再也回不去」". Apple Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-03-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The article notes:
  
  新北市知名的永和樂華夜市營運45年，如今卻因附近居民不堪人潮湧入、雜音、油煙以及交通受阻，恐將吹熄燈號，外界擔憂樂華夜市下場可能會跟當年同樣經歷住戶抗爭的師大夜市一樣「回不去了。」
  今日出刊的《聯合報》報導，過去師大夜市擁有許多美食店家，學生、上班族甚至是國外遊客都很喜歡來逛，全盛時期約7百多商家營業，但經過居民衝突後，目前僅剩下3百多家，當地龍泉里里長龐維良表示「大家都以為師大夜市不見了！」
9. 施春美 (2012-02-10). "師大夜市店家　跪求生路願改善油煙污水市府：依法拆遷". Apple Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-03-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The article notes:
  
  以師大夜市聞名的師大社區因商家違規在住宅區營業，上月遭北巿府發函要求遷離，由數百家業者組成的「守護師大商圈聯盟」昨號召約三百人表達訴求；發言人柯裕佑說，店家願改善油煙、污水等設備，盼巿府不要趕盡殺絕，並一度跪地求市府給一條生路。但北巿府強調，將依法執行。
  師大社區在一九九五年劃定的商業區僅約一公頃，區域內可經營餐飲、服飾業，但近五年店家快速往周邊住宅區擴張，面積擴大到十八點五公頃，店面數也從數十家急速膨脹到六百四十七家，店家入侵住宅區導致居民飽受噪音、油煙、髒亂困擾，去年十月居民憤而組成自救會，要求市府整頓違法店家，市府上月針對七十家業者發出第一批遷移令，要求店家遷出住宅區。
10. 潘姿羽 (2014-08-11). "師大夜市人潮減　降租10％公館設徒步區屋主看好效益". Apple Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-03-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The article notes:
  
  師大夜市和公館商圈同是北市知名商圈，也僅差捷運線一站的距離，命運卻是大不同。師大夜市現在人潮明顯減少，店租也下修5∼10％；公館商圈8月初開始試行徒步區，雖然有店家抗議，但業者透露，對商圈發展是項利多，未來店租可能調漲。
  過度擴張居民抗議
  師大夜市因緊鄰台灣師範大學、捷運台電大樓站，交通便利、人潮流動頻繁，曾是北市熱門商圈，但因商家過度擴張，周邊居民不堪其擾，2011年底發動抗爭，使店租原本每坪1萬元起是稀鬆平常的行情價，現在很多跌落至每坪不到5000元。
  台灣房屋師大和平特許加盟店副理游舒彰表示，師大路39巷以南、雲和街以北　龍泉街以西和師大路圍起的街廓屬於商業區，可合法經營店家。不過當地業者透露，現在租金已經漲不動，一漲價、業者寧願搬走，僅剩可合法營業的區塊月租金每坪尚有8000∼10000元的行情，其餘區域可能每坪3000∼4000元。
11. "2017最新排行！十大台灣必逛人氣夜市". United Daily News. 2017-01-19. Archived from the original on 2017-03-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The article notes:
  
  No.8 師大夜市
  因位於臺灣師範大學旁而得名，是北臺灣地區1990年代興起的商圈，後一度擴張成所謂的師大夜市，旋因住宅區居民訴諸居住正義、對油煙與噪音等公害的群起抗爭，而擺脫以餐飲為主的典型夜市樣態。
  現在的師大夜市已經變成小資女的逛街買衣服的選擇逛街地方之一，師大夜市慢慢從美食林立變成服飾業居多的商圈，那現在師大夜市還剩下哪些美食呢？網路上常推薦的是這兩間美食，好好味冰火波蘿油外酥內冰的菠蘿油，配上店家推薦的絲襪奶茶，幸福的好滋味；至於隱身在夜市巷弄中20多年的許紀生煎包也是老饕們排隊也要吃到的生煎包，皮薄內餡多價格實在是他火紅的理由。
12. "Hau says no further expansion of the Shida Night Market will be permitted". Taipei Times. 2011-11-08. Archived from the original on 2017-03-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) announced yesterday that no further expansion of the Shida Night Market, one of the city’s busiest tourist attractions, would be permitted, in a bid a protect the rights of residents.
  In addition to the expansion ban, Hau also instructed officials to ensure businesses in the area stick to strict management regulations and carefully screen new business applications.
  Hau’s decision came after strong opposition from local residents, who accused businesses in the area of adversely impacting their quality of life and staged a demonstration on Oct. 26.
  ...
  Tax revenues from the night market near National Taiwan Normal University totaled NT$12.3 billion (US$408.6 million) in 2009, rising to NT$14.7 billion last year, figures from the Taipei National Tax Administration showed.
13. Yan-chih, Mo. (2012-03-21). "Taipei softens stance in night market crackdown. FLIP-FLOP: A proposal to establish a points system for assessing businesses' performance would only lead to more confrontations with residents, a borough chief said" (pages 1 and 2). Taipei Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2017-03-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The article notes:
  
  The Taipei City Government yesterday softened its stance on illegal businesses in Shida Night Market, saying it would only target vendors that seriously violate noise and air pollution regulations.
  Businesses set up in alleys less than 6m wide, which violate a Taipei City urban planning bylaw that prohibits the operation of restaurants, retail stores or service--related businesses in small alleys, can continue to operate if they do not violate other regulations, the city government said.
  “The city government will not demolish Shida Night Market. Our priority will be to deal with vendors that seriously violate regulations,” Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) said at Taipei City Hall.
14. Frazier, David. (2012-07-25). "Travel writers warn Taipei City: Destroying Shida is a 'stupid move'" (pages 1 and 2). Taipei Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2017-03-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  The article notes:
  
  By killing off Shida’s cafes, international restaurants and culture spaces, is Taipei shooting itself in the foot? Several international travel writers contacted by the Taipei Times seem to think so. They say the move makes Taipei look bad and compare the current situation to a crackdown by China’s Communist Party.
  ...
  Lonely Planet lists Taiwan as one of its “top 10 countries for 2012,” and the latest Taiwan guidebook rates Shida as Taipei’s second best night market, after Shilin.
  ...
  New York Times travel writer Matt Gross says that in recent visits to Shida, he found that “there was just so much going on there, from the crazy variety of international restaurants (including multiple worthy burger joints) to the effortlessly hip boutiques. It had the energy of Ximending, but with a more homegrown, grown-up, honest feel to it.”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shida Night Market to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. --do ncr am 10:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep already meets WP:GNG per Cunard.--Skyfiler (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. He's done an impressive amount of homework on this and it does meet WP:GEOLAND, for districts -- which is essentially GNG for neighbourhoods-- or WP:GEOFEAT, if considered a commerical development, which again, merely directs us back to GNG. A bona fide member of Category:Night markets in Taiwan. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to the sources revealed by Cunard, it is clear that this article should be retained. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Vogels

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

I'm unconvinced that this individual is notable. I'm unable to find any substantial coverage about her in reliable sources myself. Reviewing the sources present reveals brief mentions e.g. in the "5 people to follow" and "Top 25" sources. The claim "Her work has been published in The New York Times" fails to stand up to scrutiny given that the article only quotes here alongside other reader's views. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth sources, just trivial media mentions. Was the BLP created by a paid editor? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

To answer my question: it was. Does the fee of 120 EUR get refunded if the article is deleted? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No it does not, because I do clearly state that an article may get deleted. Best, Lingveno (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Paid editing is a scourge that must be wiped out, and is ipso facto promotional no matter how neutrally worded it may appear. The only sources about her rather than by her are themselves-promotional listicles. And nothing in the actual article content rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the main contributor. A popular Austrian technical magazine suggests that the article's subject is included in its list of top 25 female entrepreneurs. I myself changed my opinion and now think that the article's subject is barely notable and I could try to rewrite it on the base of the neutral third-party sources. There are a couple of sources which could help building a tiny cleaned up article. Smartse, your opinion? --Lingveno (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A subject is either notable or not. If they aren't then no amount of editing can make an article suitable for inclusion. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Lingveno (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, this one is a triple threat. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG; they clearly don't meet WP:NAUTHOR; and I don't think I've ever seen an academician before who didn't get a single citation on google scholar, so they fail WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Greenwood

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

Ex-footballer and now a coach who appears to fail WP:NFOOTY. He does not appear to have played professionally as a player and whilst he has held various coaching and administrative positions, he has never been a manager. I also strongly suspect that the article's creator and main editor (Professional football coach (talk · contribs)) is Greenwood himself, so there are also issues around WP:COI and WP:NOTCV. This user also removed a prod from the article. Number 5 7 10:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we are all aware the position of Technical Director in a FIFA Member Association is the most senior coaching/management football specific role and is in charge of all Tier 1 International Fixtures. Any advice on how this page can be more effectively structured to fit similar coaches pages would be appreciated. Articles from the GFF and news outlets have been used as references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professional football coach (talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can any source be found to support appearances for Koo Tee Pee in 03/04? If so then @GiantSnowman: and @Number 57: are wrong, he does meet WP:NFOOTY and I would argue that his later career, particularly with Guyana would help satisfy GNG. Currently though, without a source and with no evidence that his positions with national teams have in themselves garnered significant independent coverage to satisfy GNG. this source and this source seem to go some way to satisfying GNG, as they are independent news sources covering his appointment and giving some career background. I would like to see more of this though as the other sources provided are either primary sources or are sources which mention Greenwood without providing any real substance.

@Professional football coach: it would help if you could provide a source that confirms appearance(s) either in the Veikkausliga or in the Finnish cup in a match between two Veikkausliga teams, as this would confirm WP:NFOOTY notability. Will reserve judgement until this issue can be cleared up. Fenix down (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There is no source existing to support the claims made, and coverage of him is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails GNG and there doesn't appear to be any solid evidence of NFOOTY Spiderone 09:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus shifted after relisting and WWGB's major expansion. There is no consensus to delete the information anymore and while at the current consensus is to keep the separate article, a merge to a yet-to-be-created article about the zoo can be discussed independently from this AfD. So Why 07:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vince (rhinoceros)

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

WP:COATRACK, subject only received coverage due to the unusual manner of his death, which received a short flurry of news stories at the time of the death. No in-depth reliable coverage existed before this death, and little else has been written since. No enduring coverage, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources prior to death. Jayron 32 04:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this were a human it would fail BLP1E, and the same logic should apply here. Perhaps there may be mention of this in a article about poaching, but we definitely should not have a separate article where only the death is the most notable thing about the creature. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Parc Zoologique de Thoiry, which will need to be created. There is s French language article that could be translated. The poaching of one of their star animals is a notable event in the history of this notable zoo. However an article on the animal itself is not justified for reasons Masem outlines. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge might work. This could include a subsection.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Masem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be deleted, may I request that it be userified or draftified such that I could use it to create Parc Zoologique de Thoiry in the near future. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thoiry, Yvelines, which can be spun off into a separate zoo article if necessary. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article on the zoo, which should be quick to create, at least as a short article to start with. This was a shocking and newsworthy case that people will want to find out about here. bd2412 T 11:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Thoiry Zoo is covered in the English Wikipedia by the article Château of Thoiry. Considering the French wiki has separate articles for fr:Château de Thoiry and fr:Parc zoologique de Thoiry I'm not sure we're getting this 100% right - this could do with attention from a French speaker. However, for now, a condensed version of Vince (rhinoceros) could be merged to a subsection of Château_of_Thoiry#Exhibits and I think this would be the best outcome of this AfD. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. The english article about the castle is actually about the zoo; the french article about the castle doesn't mention the zoo. Comte0 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably to a subsection of Château of Thoiry per LukeSurl. Certainly an outright "Delete" would be wrong, as it would removed the redirect and the edit history which editors can use in developing at another article for now, or perhaps for a separate expanded article at the original title later, if there is reason (content/sources) in the future. --do ncr am 22:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Château of Thoiry#Zoo where an adequate summary already exists, there is ongoing coverage in French and English.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of good sources. Article in good shape overall. even several of those !voting Merge admits that it is a noteworthy and special case. Keep also per WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been expanded and now shows that Vince was cited in multiple independent sources throughout his life. Satisfies WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the hard work of WWGB and others, this article now easily passes WP:GNG - Vince's live received decent coverage, not just his sad death. Edwardx (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hate to admit that even a small article is passable as the content is way different from the Zoo castle article. George Ho (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 06:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Ulua (SS-428)

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

Ship was cancelled, should be redirected unless community views an article is necessary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to class article. Brad (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well referenced article about a named ship of the United States Navy.FFA P-16 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to class article; not completed. Kierzek (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Well referenced, actual ship. I think that never completed isn't the same as not completed to original specifications. Passes V, NOR, NPOV, and entry in NAFS is not trivial. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a fully developed, sourced article, with photo and detailed infobox. (By the way, about the armaments asserted in the infobox, I wonder if they might have been planned but not installed, in which case that should be noted. But this is a detail for editing at the article.) No purpose served by removing this from the encyclopedia. --do ncr am 22:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Balao-class submarine, as not completed project; the article itself tells us that it was the "only submarine" named after a particular fish, while the infobox is twice as long as the actual article, including references. Can be briefly mentioned in the target article. Suggesting a redirect as anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; convention is that a named commissioned military ship is notable, and while this one wasn't commissioned, she did serve in a fashion, so for me that's good enough given that the article is pretty complete and simply redirecting to the class page would leave the reader with less information than keeping the article. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Keatinge

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

No evidence of any notability, he is listed in some registers but that's about it. No good reliable sources could be found online. Fram (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AS the author of the article I am obviously biased but users other than myself have removed the template, acknowledging that this, and many similar, articles are of great importance to the history of the UK and Ireland, and indeed the relationship between them.Bashereyre (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who make's the decision? I feel that both User:Fram and myself have a vested interest, and should therefore not make the final decision. Can we have a final decision about Anglican archdeacons to avoid future time-wasting? Could not a blanket ruling be administered? The articles are, after all, largely going to be stubs.Bashereyre (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The decision will be made by an uninvolved editor (usually an admin) based on the discussion here (not simply a votecount, the closer looks at which opinions are policy-based and which aren't). Overstating your case (like claiming that this article is of great importance to the history of the UK and Ireland) won't help you in getting this saved though. Considering that the position of Archdeacon of Ardfert is so important that no one bothered to create an article for it until 26 March 2017, I don't think automatically assuming that anyone holding the position is notable is correct. Fram (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - These matters are decided case-by-case here. I do think the comment about Ardfert is tasteless. Irish history here is neglected, because there are not enough Irish editors. Irish Protestant history more so. Ardfert being an agricultural village in county Kerry, we are a long way from Dublin, and in fact in the heart of one of the historically deprived parts of Ireland. The opinions of Church of Ireland leaders in the decades before the Great Famine clearly do matter, now as then. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am a bit of a lone wolf on Anglican Archdeacons in Ireland. I have a job and family. If I live long enough, they will all be done. Surely Wikipedia should not be the sole preserve of people who seem to do nothing else. Workaholics never see the full pictureBashereyre (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed in Boase, Modern English Biography, a standard reference work; I found this quickly on Google Books. By the way, reference to the Library of Congress entry on VIAF gives two titles of works, and those reveal he is also known as M. J. Keating and M. I. Keating as an author. As such, he was an opponent of Irish poor laws, and suggested reform of the grand jury system. So the article can easily be improved. Rector of Ventry at that period. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a link here and/or at the article? Fram (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes. But you can find it yourself, I guess, by searching for "Keatinge, Michael John". Per WP:BEFORE, you presumably searched Google Books, but did not use that search term. Or, since Google Books is not the same in each country, perhaps it isn't there for you. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - So no-one else needs to bother: Frederic Boase (1912). Modern English Biography: (Supplement v.1-3). Netherton and Worth. p. 2187. Note that the Find Sources | Books link in the template at the head of this AfD page, searching for "Michael John Keatinge", doesn't yield this result: Noyster (talk), 13:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For Fram to refer to Keating in such disparaging terms as just an Archdeacon is to deliberately demean him. He was Dean of Kilfenora for some 20 years. Plucas58 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether the content from stub articles on (e.g.) archdeacons who might not be individually notable should be grouped together as a biographical list article (at Archdeacon of X)? I think it'd be a stretch to claim that every single individual archdeacon ever has been necessarily notable, but perhaps they are as a group? DBD 13:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This may well be a way forward, but I would argue that whenever a stub I have created is threatened with deletion more scholarly contributors than myself seem to find plenty of material. I sincerely hope Wikipedia will be here for many centuries, and that every so often someone as eclectic as myself will want to add more. I would never dream of putting an article like this up for deletion Hannah Banana but I think Michael John Keating(e) is as worthy of a place as what I would personally say is a single episode of a program that does deserve an articleBashereyre (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Dan I think the time may be coming for an Anglican Wiki. The only problem will be that articles would be edited factionally, but at least every single priest could have one!Bashereyre (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In previous centuries such clerical positions were far more important and influential in society than they are today. This is not a paper encyclopaedia no other information is lost due to the inclusion of this article. With additions made by Charles Matthews I think the notability of this person is clear. One of the interesting things about early 20th century publications such as the EB1911 and the Dictionary of National Biography is how many entries there are for clerics of all denominations. This I think reflects the prominence that clerics had in previous centuries, and why articles such as this one is notable. -- PBS (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charles Matthews. Deans are usually, but not necessarily, notable. But this one passes WP:GNG, as demonstrated above. St Anselm (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - simply passes GNG now. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In England Deans (of Cathedrals) are generally regarded as notable; less sure about archdeacons; and also less sure about Church of Ireland. However his statements about Irish land tenure are likely to be significant. All in all enough to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources and position in the Anglican Church support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - before Roman Catholics got the vote in 1829 and disestablishment in the Victorian era, the Church of Ireland was the official church, so that an Archdeacon c. 1827 was a pretty important person, already on the margin of notability. That this man was frequently quoted and is listed support a claim of notability. FWIW, I have grandparents who were CI and RC, two of whom even married. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Perkins

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

Non-notable American "social media marketing guru"/minor-parts actor, puffed up by the usual thin sources and passing mentions usd to imply notability. Calton | Talk 05:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable American and the CEO of pop-star Rihanna's entertainment company and personal branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional fan page; such content does not belong in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried a quick search for him in google-news -which reached zilch. Following the references in the article (to news organizations - not facebook) and searching for Perkins in the reference got nothing. He's a minor actor (as per article and IMDB entry) - so he doesn't pass on that.Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Tobin

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced. None of the books which featured the character are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. RoCo^(talk) 15:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A seemingly unnotable fictional character. Sources regarding the character are few and far in between, and they are nothing more than listings of a few of the books the character appeared in. Admittedly, the majority of the books the character appeared in are far older than the internet, thus there may have been some reliable sources back in the day that have never been brought online, but unless some of those are brought to light, this character does not pass the GNG. On a side note, it may be worth it to look over the Wikipedia article on the author for notability as well, as during my search for sources on the character, I found just as few reliable sources discussing his creator. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's comment. Does not appear to have enough coverage for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kirby (wrestler)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only references are Cagematch championship histories. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 02:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of numerous articles on non-notable wrestlers created by User:Rickyc123 with content copied from the Pro Wrestling Wikia site. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Info Edge (India). So Why 06:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naukrigulf.com

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

nonnotable recruiting website Staszek Lem (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & then redirect to Info Edge (India). No independent sourcing & no apparent significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the parent: A market-specific employment portal alongside Naukri.com and others, under Info Edge (India). While there is evidence of the operation, it does not indicate independent notability. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be a weak keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuyul & Mba Yul Reborn

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

Non notable foreign soap opera, 1 ref. Only one English mention in the press. L3X1 (distant write) 19:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see several hits in reliable Indonesian sources. Plus, it appears to have aired on a national TV network, which would mean it passes our notability guidelines for TV shows. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article's title is a typo: the name of the show is Tuyul & Mbak Yul Reborn. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying that. L3X1 (distant write) 13:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. English sources are not required. Generally if a TV show airs on a TV network, I think we find it notable. See also Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming. I am not fully sure if antv has national coverage, but it seems to be cable, to probably yes... Ping me if I am wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Leonard Jr.

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

Non notable lawyer. There is a lack of coverage about him in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor coverage, mentions in passing, low reliability sources, not notable as an actor, nor in any other role or function. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources US national coverage. If you seach news without "Jr". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4300:155E:80A8:B5DF:D340:7D46 (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also this lawyer is mentioned in NYT, books, etc. wide coverage. Not sure what you mean by "low reliability sources" that is not the case here. 2601:80:4300:155E:80A8:B5DF:D340:7D46 (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The mentions are still all passing, not substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The main argument for deletion is that the sources are in a foreign language. However, that is not a valid argument for deletion. The keep rationales speak to the appropriate policies. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Maraka

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

I really don't think this article should be on the English Wikipedia. 9 out of the 10 sources on this article are in Arabic and not that much evidence of passing WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as he is rather little known to the rest of the world. This article had also been speedily deleted under A7 but was recreated. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no rule that sources need to be in English, and Wikipedia is meant to cover notable people no matter what langauge they do their activities in. Aziz is a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make if references are not in English? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot actually. Barely anyone would be able to read it. That's why it shouldn't be on enwiki. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was literally just listening to him when you replied. Anyway as far as I am aware, there are no Wikipedia policies that support this article's deletion. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Makeandtoss. Just because a lot of the references are non-English does not mean we should delete a well-sourced article. Applodion (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that non-English language sources are usable on English Wikipedia. See WP:NOENG for more information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useless Kisses

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a renomination. I previously nominated the article but it was closed with no consensus due to low quorum. It was open to speedy renomination, but I didn't do so (I don't remember why). That was in November. The article has been untouched since last time. My previous deletion rationale remains accurate:

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Just because the singer is notable doesn't mean the album is too.

--Mr. Guye (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Mr. Guye (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

005

(Find video game sources: "005" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:N, is poorly sourced. I was unable to find anything except this source, though there may be print sources that I do not have access to (as this is a 1981 game and all). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 15 March 2017 (UT

Went to different Wikipedia versions to see if there were any sources listed, and found this: Guinness World Records. Unsure if this is enough for it to be considered notable, but I can't find much else.--IDV^talk 08:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find one other mention of the game here [14], WP:NVG suggests that these references suggest more reliable print sources exist. However without having access to these theoretical resources it's hard to argue for keep. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was mentioned in Retro Gamer #118, giving it at least some lasting notability. It's a terrible name to search in magazine archives. It feels like something that may have been covered due to its unique nature. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Schweitzer Foundation for Our Contemporaries

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability criteron at WP:ORG. Of the sources in the article, only this appears usable under that guideline and it doesn't have much to say about the subject itself. Other sources online and in the article appear to be from related charities or routine nonprofit evaluations. VQuakr (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization's campaigns have achieved coverage in independent sources. See, for example, this article in the CBC about it's banning of lobster sales in German supermarkets and this one about it's campaign against foie gras in MeteoWeb. Searching for the organization's correct name in German (Albert Schweitzer Stiftung für unsere Mitwelt) brings up more sources such as Berlkiner Morgenpost. The connection to Vipul's paid editing scheme has been declared by the article creator and I see nothing that contradicts the caveats expressed in the close of that ANI thread. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I did notice the MeteoWeb link during WP:BEFORE; it, the cbc.ca source, and the German one you found are all similar in that they do not discuss the subject itself in sufficient depth to meet WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Daimler

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial references. "References" either do not mention article subject or are single line mentions of subject. Vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seconding original opinions. bojo | talk 23:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am going to address the other concerns mentioned with the article:

1. Verifiability: I have added more sources where someone can go to find more information on the subject. 2.Orphan Article: There are several links in the article that are linked to another Wikipedia article, the following are linked, Hotmail, TiVo, Presidential Innovation Fellows, and Kathleen Carley. 3. External Links: The external links in the body of the article are links to the subjects contributions in his work. The websites have far too much information to be included in the article and is best served as a link for someone to follow if they want to learn more about the specifics with his work. 4. Single Source: Most of my research does come from whitehouse.gov as his major contributions were done here as he works in the white house. whitehouse.gov is a reliable resource. I have also added more references of the places information on the subject can be found. 4. Notability: I have noted some of his published work in the article and the references. He is a presidential innovation fellow which is on wikipedia and many of them have their own wikipedia page. I have included several links in the references on papers he has published.

If anything further needs to be added, I will add it. Rfshearer (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Even in the unlikely chance that Daimler is notable, this article is so flawed in its format, using too many bare links to outside sources and meandering to be a coatrack, that we should delete it and maybe start over, but probably not at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please check recent updates. Existing issues has been addressed. It took me days to fixed the all issues. I have cite the contents by reliable references. Promotional contents has been removed. Please remove this nomination. -Rfshearer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC) — Rfshearer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, the additional "references"are mostly brief mentions, line listings, or do not mention the article subject. A number of these "references" were previously removed as unrelated. I stand by my original !vote to delete. reddogsix (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the article has been significantly copy edited and changed compared to its state when it was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 1 citation to his work on GS in well-cited field. Impact is negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

João Pedro Sorgi

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

Non-notable tennis player. No major appearances or Challenger titles. Fails WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorgi was a top ten juniors player, but missed out on the top 3 that is required for inherent notability. No notable wins in Juniors either, with his best appearance being a Juniors Doubles QF at the 2011 US Open. Sellyme^Talk 02:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While Sorgi don't meet none of the notability points, he is for sure more notable than Eduardo Russi Assumpção, for example, who achieved the most poor point: played in an ATP World Tour main draw. Sorgi has been no. 8 for Brazil in Singles for a while too. OneTennisEditor (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But playing in ATP World Tour is enough according to Wiki Tennis guidelines, while Sorgi hasn't met any of them. And Sorgi doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then just delete it, as being outside the top 1000 with a 0–1 Tour record is more notable for the guidelines. When Sorgi meet one of the requirements, I'll republish it. OneTennisEditor (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you are that frustrated about the existence of Assumpção's article, go ahead and nominate it for deletion. It has little chance of being kept, looking at how little the man achieved. Getting one Wild Card for one ATP tournament doubles draw and losing that only match winning just three games is not the same as playing on the ATP World Tour.T v x1 21:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly non-notable tennis player.T v x1 21:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no notability with this player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable tennis player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nominator's change of opinion is noted, though withdrawal is impossible per WP:WITHDRAWN. Kurykh (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarz (musician)

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:BIO. Fail to identify notability from sources, which seem to be mix of entertainment blogs and invalid entries. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have a claim to notability. KaisaL (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many links, but no reliable sources exist to prove musical notability. We usually delete DJ stubs. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some analysis of the links in the article, perhaps? I spy an article in Fader, two Vice articles, Baltimore City Paper, and two additional but cursory posts in Fader and Vice. Not the strongest coverage, but enough from reliable sources to cover the basics of the artist. czar 05:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, please add the sources, and text if applicable, and ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian, they're currently in the article (refs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11–13). Might have been one or two more small things I found outside, but Fader and Vice are good sources, City Paper is local but okay, the question is just whether this coverage together is significant. I remember at least one being at extended length. czar 21:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, I agree that City Paper is reasonably reliable. Please continue to work on this article to bring it to WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I hadn't worked on the article (I was actually just passing through to close it when I looked at the sources), but I cleaned it up a bit. Again, I don't think it's a strong case, but the Vice Noisey source is great for detail and expansion. Based on the current bibliography, I think there's adequate support for an article that does justice to the topic. czar 07:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent work Czar. If it is reasonably notable, is it worth me withdrawing the nomination today. scope_creep (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're satisfied with the sourcing, sure, but I'm under no illusions that it's a clear-cut case. I think the sourcing is good (read: minimally robust) but I'm open to other opinions. When articles are on the cusp but have enough to cover the basic importance of the topic, I try to be generous. czar 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether Czar's sources justify keeping the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Significant work has been done to the article, to prove notability. Withdrawn by nominator scope_creep (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi Reichenberg

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

Her acting credits don't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be IMDb, so we can't have articles just sourced to it. Beyond this, a bunch of minor roles just does not make someone a significant actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and they definitely don't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that this is notable and needs expansion but not deletion. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 03:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Balkans terrorism plot

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

I feel like this article fails WP:NOTE as the event never was not very significant. Also, the article only contains two linked sources, neither of which detail any actual action taken by the perpetrators beyond just 'thinking of doing something.' Kamalthebest (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS and fails the "lasting effect" criterion of WP:NEVENT. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the article itself looks like a poor stub to me (I'll tag it), this was an ultra-high-profile terrorism plot that received coverage in most major international newspapers, and in particular plenty in Israel, Albania, and Kosovo. BTW, according to reliable news reports, a total of 26 (not 18) people were eventually arrested. What makes it even more notable per WP:EVENT is the lingering effect on these countries. It included a Jerusalem stadium public screening of the Albania-Israel match, since the travel of Israeli fans to Albania was prohibited after this terrorism plot was discovered. -- IsaacSt (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, are these screenings still being done? Are Israelis still banned from entering Albania? What is even more important, is there WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after this news spike? Giving sources to back up these claims is highly recommended. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd like some sources for these claims too please. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, looks like some clarification is needed: It was Israel's Counter-Terrorism Bureau that issued the travel warning, not Albania. Also, as you may understand, this was a world cup qualifier match, and it could take years until Israel happens to play in Albania again, so the question about "screenings still being done" is an irrelevant one. The soccer match was just an example, anyway.

For an event to be considered notable, it has to meet at least one of the points mentioned in WP:EVENT. This particular terror plot meets not one, but all of them. Repercussions ranged from weeks later (mentioned in my previous post) to as late as this month [15] (WP:EFFECT / WP:PERSISTENCE). It affected Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and Israel, and now also Iraq (WP:GEOSCOPE). It received in-depth coverage on countless reliable sources all over the world (WP:INDEPTH / WP:DIVERSE): try the simple Google search [16], and you can pick from literally hundreds of reliable sources, even though this Google search only returns English sources (English isn't the language of any of the involved countries) and only the Albanian incident (remember that the attack was planned on Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia simultaneously). Need I say more? -- IsaacSt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if it could take years until Israel plays again, I take that as a one-off event, i.e. it fails the lasting effects criterion. What may or may not happen in the future falls under WP:CRYSTAL. I took a look at your second link and GNews and I cannot find any reliable coverage to satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE, especially the line about "multiple sources". Nothing in-depth from 2017. No, the Daily Star (link#1) does not count, it is a highly unreliable tabloid, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 90#Daily Star. If you have got something better than that, present them here and don't leave it up to us to search for something we cannot find, because the WP:ONUS is on the inclusionists. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're attacking only one out of the entire list of proofs of notability, and it was given as an example only. I've provided plenty of refs above, though I had not been involved in the creation or editing of this article in any way, so I'm not sure why you think it is my duty to search for refs more than it's yours (WP:BEFORE). I respectfully suggest we agree that we disagree and we leave it to those that haven't spoken up yet. Please don't reply to this thread, and I’m not going to do that either. Let's save everyone else a WP:REPEAT. -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and expand) Main problem seems to be that the article is too short as of now, but the subject material should be more than enough for an article if the article is just improved a little. User2534 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and expand) - this article needs expansion and improvements. not deletion. AfD is not a clean-up service.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Notable plot; impressive impact section already in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN by User:IsaacSt makes this unquestionably notable; also makes clear that Nom and Hypergaruda did not follow WP:BEFORE or look for sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Lee

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

Totally unsourced BLP, could not find evidence of notability which was surprising if her career is accurately reported here. I can confirm that she exists, and find plenty of non-reliable sources for this, but couldn't confirm that she passes notability. Even though it is a totally unreferenced BLP and should therefore be technically deleted, I wanted to give the page a fair chance as the subject definitely sounds like there OUGHT to be sources, but I am surprised that I can't find anything very convincing on quick searches, especially if her CV/media profile is accurately reported here. Perhaps a lot of the best sources are in Russian? I posted a request on Wikiproject Russia with resounding lack of interest/response. Therefore, I am nominating for deletion but am open to withdrawing if reliable sources can be located, as I'm sure there MUST be some out there. Mabalu (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Mabalu (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. nn. 90% of the article is not about her, but about bands she sung. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- keep (changed opinion). As usual with such personalities, it takes some time do dig thru usual buzz. But eventually, after 3 attemmpts of search I became convinced that sufficient coverage does exist. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need a source beyond the subjects own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of two notable bands. This Rolling Stone interview with her verified that. There is a ton of hits for her name with her bands but since my Russian is non existant I can't really say which ones are good (of course the best sources are in Russian). (Not so successful in US with The Same Side or Lovely Day). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Катя Ли Фабрика and Катя Ли Hi-Fi for those with Russian. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[17] magazine cover. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Please can someone who reads Russian confirm one way or another? Interviews are of course primary sources, so there would need to be pretty substantial commentary on the subject at the beginning of the interview from the journalist that could be used as a source. I couldn't check this because my work filters have categorised the Russian version of Rolling Stone as a porn site. When I looked up the two notable groups she was in, only one other member of Hi Fi had an article (with what seems a fair amount of sourcing), whilst Fabrika only has articles for 50% of their members/ex-members including this one - none of which seem particularly well sourced. Mabalu (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:BAND point #6: "... is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". She's been a member of Fabrika and Hi-Fi (Russian band) as a vocalist. The guidelines say that this would mean she's notable in an independent capacity, which should prevent any need to analyse any other side of it. If the article needs improving then so be it, but that isn't an issue of notability. KaisaL (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the rule that states that biographies of living people MUST have reliable sources, EVEN if they pass other criteria for notability. I understand - maybe wrongly - that per BLP, we NEED reliable sourcing for the biography, and if no RS exist (which does surprise me) then a page should be deleted or redirected (but then the question is begged - redirect to where? Obviously there are at least two candidates?). Mabalu (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEL-CONTENT the options there are: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. So yes, deletion is an option, but this could be reduced to a 1-2 sentence stub. Deleting an article because people can't read Russian is a terrible, cultural bias enabling decision. KaisaL (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have, further to this, taken it upon myself to reduce the article to a stub. You're welcome to revert this but given the concern seems to be unsourced material, it's a logical course of action. I'm of the view that AFD should deal in notability, not content concerns. KaisaL (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is arguing for deletion because they can't read Russian - I gave Wikiproject Russia a whole month in which to confirm her notability, but nobody could be bothered, it seems, and have said several times in this AFD that I would like input from Russian speakers/readers to confirm what the sources in Russian say. Mabalu (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that she was a "reasonably prominent member". I can fid barely a word about her. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. These look like they might be ok. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those definitely look interesting. Can someone who can read Russian comment please? Mabalu (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NBAND, has rs coverage in Rolling Stone, I don't speak Russian but several of the above refs seem to be news sites and likely rs Atlantic306 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough good refs. Im concerned that Duffbeerforme votes keep on these articles for deletion then does nothing to improve them. Its not on to go around and vote 'keep' on something that takes your fancy and argue for weeks to keep them, and then leave the articles how they were. Like you did on Francis Brabazon with your offline sources arguments. Where are they? SaintAviator lets talk 21:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:HOUND. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a prerequisite of AFD to work on the article. KaisaL (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

: This might be shocking, but nominators and delete voters can also add the references found during an AFD to the article in question Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per WP:BAND point #6; if the criteria is wrong, then suggest changing that. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Belling the cat, anyone? You know, if you would all stop arguing about who should or shouldn't add these new cites and sources, and someone would just add them already, then I would probably have withdrawn this nom sooner. But as nobody seems to want to lift a finger to do it, and I don't trust myself to do it properly, well, here we are... by all means carry on squabbling. Mabalu (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, pointy much. So you want the article deleted because you think it's WP:UGLY and don't want to lift a finger to bell the cat? Even though you appear to be acknowledging that she it notable. Oh, someone has lifted a finger [23], see, one of the sources from above. Then there is more sources being added. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No in-depth independent sources. Bishonen | talk 13:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Singhal

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

Founder of a non-notable mobile app fails to pass general notability guideline. I tried but can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent on the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
del notability unverifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 13:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TOOSOON. One in-depth source in article. Rest are passing mentions. Source check doesn't show anything clearly substantive (low google news hit count (28) - some of which are irrelevant, mostly passing.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with no prejudice against merging. Despite relisting, no more discussion happened whether to keep as is or merge somewhere else. Since it's clear consensus though that the content - in one form or another - should be preserved, this AfD can be closed and the discussion whether to merge and redirect can happen at the talk page per WP:MERGEPROP. Regards So Why 06:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Iowan

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG as written. I checked Student Press Law Center archives and Google News. The best I found was an article in The Inquisitor that mentioned the outlet only trivially. [24] This bi-weekly been around since 1892, so it's possible it has notability that isn't apparent. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If no one comes up with additional independent reliable sources to make a stronger case for separate notability, merge and redirect this article into a new subsection at University of Northern Iowa#Student Life.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to University of Northern Iowa#Student Life. Non-notable, but the content is worthwhile in the other article. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors might try clicking the the searchbar: HighBeam, Books and other clicks validate notability. I started with a Proquest search, and added a couple of articles, assuming - mistakenly - that the searchbar must be inadequate. Also, why on earth would we want to delete a newspaper that has been publishing since POTUS was Benjamin Harrison?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks including the mention of the Vietnam op-ed. I don't think that event alone confers notability unless the newspaper itself received flak or praise for carrying it. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No obvious notability shown in article. Scattershot mention in other media does not qualify as significant coverage. 32.218.33.35 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic ad hominem commentary
This IP/SPA 32.218.33.35 edited for a few hours of reverting and harassing; followed me here from an article about a different college newspaper.

Keep - Meets RS, NPOV, and NOR. It has received passing mention or moreover a long period. I added an Associated College Press honor from 1982 to the page. newspapers.com and proquest each give hundreds of newspaper articles which quote or cite the paper, and the paper is carried by University Wire. As the paper has been around since 1892 and is a part of a large university, I would expect a stronger case to be made for its deletion given it isn't clearly a violation of wikipedia policies or covered by WP:NOT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if UWIRE accepts affiliation with just anybody? Or do they have standards? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what standards you are looking for, there isn't a NNEWSPAPERS, after all. At the UWIRE FAQ, they say to get an application packet, send them an email. That might give you a bit more information about UWIRE standards. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search on Google newspapers produces 12 results, all but one consisting of a minor mention in a local Iowa newspaper. 32.218.33.35 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still think this should be merged not deleted. The articles are passing mentions and local news, but it would be a waste to delete everything. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To decide if it should be merged or kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per discussion. --do ncr am 18:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 13:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The University Register

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

Very small college outlet (btwn 400 and 1500 copies weekly). Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I was not able to find sources that indicate notability. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect to University of Minnesota Morris#Media? Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' note that Some alums go on to journalism careers [25], and sources do exist - I just added 2 to the page, located in the process of assessing notability. In general, I think news media, even student news media, should be kept, articles on media are and extremely useful part of an encyclopedia. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in general university newspapers should be kept, along with defunct historical newspapers, it is a lot like how we are a gazetteer for places, these are places that are sources. --do ncr am 18:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a decent spin-off from the UMM page, passes V, NPOV. NOR is a bit hazy, as different media are interdependent, but I don't see how this isn't suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Perry

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

This is a highly promotional article with no claim to notability through either WP:MUSBIO or WP:GNG. The references included in the article are largely to unreliable sources, and a search for references for both "Mack Perry" and his project's name ("Agony in the Garden") revealed no substantive coverage in any reliable sources. /wiae /tlk 19:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks reliable secondary sources to establish Perry's notability. WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show that that pass WP:GNG, and they clearly don't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serah Eley

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

Doesn't appear to be notable outside of her podcast, which might not be notable either. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Cleduc (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thinly sourced with unreliable references. Fails simplest standards. WP:MUSBIO WP:GNG
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EZLynx

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

Can't find sufficient reliable source coverage to suggest that this organisation is notable. Could only find press releases or passing mentions. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; clearly corporate spam. -- Dane ^talk 03:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Pure corporate spam. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As several users have pointed out, no good can come of a list where the very definitions of the terms are so elastic and subjective. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fulfilled prophecies

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

List on a sensitive topic, attracting (WP:PROMOTION), non-notable trivia (WP:NOTABLE and WP:GNG), usually (WP:NPOV) and WP:OR, non-verifiable WP:VERIFY claims. Title also not "Claims of fulfilled prophecies". PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every visitor may be tempted to add their favorite prophetic belief, especially if the article already appears to be an undiscriminate collection of such claims. Various reverts have been done of persistent claims without supporting reliable sources (WP:RS). Multiple current claims are not referenced. The issues have been raised on the talk page in February (Talk:List_of_fulfilled_prophecies#Promotion_contention) and relevant tags were applied to the article, but this attracted no discussion. One month has elapsed since, and noone appears to currently want to work on improving the article (myself included). Few articles link to this one (Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_fulfilled_prophecies). This is not about an ongoing content dispute. This is the first request for deletion I submit, please don't hesitate to leave me a comment if something is problematic, such that I can also learn in the process. Thanks to all involved. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Talk:List_of_fulfilled_prophecies. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Bastion_Monk (reason: article creator). PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Shii (reason: provided substancial content). PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Editor2020 (reason: reverted inappropriate edits more than once). PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Chris_troutman (reason: reverted inappropriate edits more than once). PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete All there are speculations, coincidences and postfactum interpretations of vague babbles of prophets. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and prune. "Claims of fulfilled prophecies" (or "List of claims...") would be more accurate. I'd also keep only ones where there is a written contemporaneous record of the prophecy as a minimum. Some of these don't even have citations, but that's a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. Ma^t_chups 22:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better if the relevant faith-related articles described those beliefs rather than such a trivia list? Another interesting aspect which I unfortunately didn't discuss in my original comment, would be coincidential technological advancements which made some science-fiction dreams reality, I'm not sure yet if we already have something about this, but it wasn't part if this article's content. It would still be a sensitive topic as literature, preferences and notability would still be involved. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Claims of fulfilled prophecies and prune. It is probably best that this be limited to events not less than (say) 80 years ago, and prophecies made not less than 100 years ago. This should exclude OR additions. It should probably exclude those from major religions: biblical prophecy is not there; and Bahai ones should not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good can come of this. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of it is OR but more importantly it is all just so subjective, both in terms of the original claims to what fulfills a (usually quite vague) prophecy, and the criteria for including a given claim on this page. I have to agree with Chris troutman that nothing good can come of this, no matter how the name is tweaked. Agricolae (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. [insert clever prophecy about deletion here] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done! (Special:Permalink/773890670#Wikipedia_editor_prophecies) -- ]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR ═╣ 01:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UnDone! Wrong "here" it was. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Prophesied that, too. My prophecies are namespace-specific. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A List like this is a silly premise, frequently warred over whenever someone's favorite prognosticator says something that later comes to pass. The main article on prophecy already touches on many of the historical figures listed here anyways, this doesn't seem to serve a purpose. ValarianB (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurant chains in Bahrain

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

This was redirected at first, but then restored after a RfD debate. The article fails WP:LISTN as a majority of the list entries are not Bahrainian chains, they are American chains with franchises in the country. The others don't appear notable, certainly not notable enough for inclusion in the article it was originally redirecting to List of restaurant chains Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of those listed at restaurant chains based in Bahrain (other than redlinks and one link to a dab page). It's a list of ubiquitous international chains, which are not specific to Bahrain. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that insufficient coverage exists in reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject. Mz7 (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tsakis

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

(effectively) unreferenced BLP (one primary source at the very end)
created and mainly contributed to by 2 SPAs/COIs
fails WP:GNG Rayman60 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete radio personaility lacking enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SiriusXM is a national platform, so he would qualify for an article if it could be properly sourced, but it does not constitute an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to be the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG. No matter what notability criterion a person is claimed to pass, it's the claim's sourceability that determines whether an article gets to happen or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One would expect someone who is the co-host on SeriusXM to have enough sourcing, but wow, virtually nothing out there on independent reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bearcat. Could possibly be acceptable article if it could be properly sourced (per Bearcat). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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