Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 March 10 March >

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Raver[edit]

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

Not seeing nearly enough references, nor could I find any, to qualify under WP:MUSIC Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:55, 9 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) — Yash talk stalk 21:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Goudie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league or for very long or with any major awards. Yosemiter (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another in a great many of articles on non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Not sold on this one, actually. I'm thinking that if we dig hard enough, we're likely to find sources for someone who was the ECHL's career penalty minute leader. Ravenswing 09:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All time career penalty minute leader I think would probably be enough for me to say they met NHOCKEY if we looked hard enough. Overtime the one line on nhockey has been tightened up but the original spirit was an all-time stat leader would meet it. -DJSasso (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ravenswing and Djsasso as the all-time career penalty minutes leader in the ECHL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Ravenswing and Djsasso. And there certainly is some coverage as the 1st page of a Google search turned up this. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 15 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. Sel-written spam and WP:SNOW Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DB FRE$H[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Drm310 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. This article is completely unsourced, and only exists for promotion.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely nothing to suggest this person is notable and serves as little more than promotional fluff. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I will note that the article claims the artist charted but without a source to back that up, in addition to the highly promotional tone, there's really nothing here worth saving. —Non-Dropframe talk 22:51, 9 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. No agreement on whether this makes things easier or harder for readers, or whether this is in fact a duplication of material on other pages. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lord North (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS, unnecessary disambiguation page. --Nevé–selbert 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is unnecessary? -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because readers can easily click on Baron North through the hatnote at Frederick North, Lord North, and find any other person titled Lord North.--Nevé–selbert 23:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Baron North is not a dab page, and just because there is an alternative method to get to a destination that is no reason to delete a dab page. You are making the assumption that the average reader knows that barons English are referred to as Lord. This is only something that people with more than a passing knowledge of English nobility are likely to know. Hence it is better to place the dab page as a hatnote for Lord North rather than an article called Baron North-- PBS (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MULTIDABS is clear. So was the hatnote, which stated clearly:
For other holders of the title, see Baron North.
The above is plain English and is coherently concise and clear, only a fool would misinterpret. All of the entries at your disambiguation page are included on Baron North. There is no real need for this dab, at all. It merely duplicates the entries included at Baron North#Barons North (1554).--Nevé–selbert 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PBS. No benefit to the reader if we delete this; potential use (easier, quicker to find the right person) if this is retained. Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I guess we should create Lord Liverpool (disambiguation) and Lord Palmerston (disambiguation) as well, then? Such logic makes scant sense.--Nevé–selbert 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with ref to my comment 00:47, 91 Feb. I have reverted this edit @ 3:00, 18 February 2017 which removed the dab page under discussion from the primary topic page (Frederick North, Lord North) and simultaneously made the hat note more complicated than it needed to be. -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth is it more complicated? I based it off the hatnotes at Lord Liverpool and Lord Palmerston. What an odd assertion.--Nevé–selbert 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between a courtesy title and a substantive tile of Baron. Also the list of for example Earls does not equate to a list of the Lords Liverpool (as the eldest son who inherits the title may be know as a viscount". It may be younger son who uses the courtesy title of Lord Liverpool. So I do not see how other stuff is relevant here. -- PBS (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Other stuff"? Surely you realise that Liverpool and Palmerston were his successors as Prime Minister (hence the possible need for consistency)?--Nevé–selbert 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a redundant semi-copy of Baron North. The hatnote is sufficient and Baron North is more complete. (There is a Lord North Street that needs to be worked in there somehow, though.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Baron article is not "more complete" as the other in that list are in red. The dab page list can be expanded as more redlinks are filled in. -- PBS (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why that page? -- PBS (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of coure it's more complete. It includes every entry on this page and more. If anything, this page is incomplete because it doesn't include the redlinked Lord Norths on that page. Redlinks, FYI, are not excluded from dab pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Tavix (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need a page that would double editors' maintenance load because it's essentially a duplicate of another. — Gorthian (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Whether or not it is "necessary", ease of use for the reader is what matters.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because it is useful, and making user-friendly should be a prioirty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the keep arguments made are extremely weak. Empty language such as "ease of use", "useful" or "user-friendly" are not rooted in any particular policy. Per WP:2DAB, the page is redundant. Per WP:MAF, the page is a potential copyright violation. I struggle to understand why one should keep a page that is only linked by one article (in contrast to Baron North), an article whose hatnote once made it perfectly clear that for "other holders of the title" one should click ahead to Baron North, and find their way through. We must be taking our readers for fools, if we honestly think that half-duplicating pages for the sole purpose of making it "quicker to find the right person" is necessary (for those with a smaller monitor, why not scroll down?).--Nevé–selbert 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe 2DABS applies, as there are about 8 people known as 'Lord North'. Many of the arguments boil down to that and WP:USEFUL. Disambiguation pages are there to make it easier and quicker to navigate and this does so. However, a redirect to Baron North#Barons North (1554) would give pretty much the same page. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 19:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the men on the DAB page would have been known during their lifetimes as "Lord North". If a reader (emphasis added) comes across a contemporary historical reference to "Lord North", they need an easy way of finding out which one was meant. That's what DAB pages are for.
Example: the DNB article on Edward North, 1st Baron North (c. 1496 – 1564) (see WikiSource) calls him "Lord North". Narky Blert (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a valid keep argument by any stretch of the imagination. @Narky Blert: The peer you mention is included at Baron North#Barons North (1554).--Nevé–selbert 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Neve-selbert: please cite WP:POLICY rather than restating your personal opinion yet another time. In WP:AFD debates, I state my case in full at the outset, and only make further comments strictly in reply. Narky Blert (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited WP:2DABS over and over. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge policy is up to you, I am afraid.--Nevé–selbert 19:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of redundancy with Baron North. The maintenance of two nearly identical pages doubles the work load and makes it much more likely that an editor updating one page will overlook the other, leading to potential confusion for readers. Narky Blert, a reader's search for Lord North would bring them to Frederick North, Lord North, where a hatnote indicates where to look for others called that. Update the hatnote to point to Baron North, and problem solved! — Gorthian (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorthian: I'm sure it was accidental, but you've already !voted. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Oops. At least I'm consistent! Thanks for the alert. — Gorthian (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The prime minister (and primary topic for "Lord North") is Frederick North, Lord North, one of many people called Earl of Guilford. The latter article is about the title not one person. Frederick North, Lord North already has a hatnote with the function you refer to. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and repurpose hatnote on the PM's article to Baron North. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as effective copy of Baron North. Agree with other commenters regarding hatnote. Jaxyking (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The entire list is on the Baron North page. A hatnote, as others have already suggested, will suffice. Onel5969 TT me 18:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of Lord North Street and its use as a title by numerous notable holders is enough reason for the DAB page. If the consensus is that the content is duplicative of the section in Baron North, it should be redirected to that section per that argument. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Lord North Street would be a partial title match. That being said however, I've added a See also section at Baron North, linking to said street.--Nevé–selbert 07:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PTM only forbids PTMs that don't have an affinity for the DAB page, such as the example they give, listing the Louisville Zoo at the Zoo DAB page. From WP:PTM: the Mississippi River article...is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi". and Place names are often divided between a specific and generic part...it is entirely proper to include such place names in disambiguation pages with the specific title.... Streets and other road features are commonly referred to without the street/road/avenue/square/plaza bit, and given that "Lord North" is essentially a unique and highly specific name, PTM wouldn't disallow its inclusion here. This follows how DAB pages actually work in these cases (e.g. the square at Trafalgar (disambiguation), the numerous British entries at Downing, the cape at Good Hope, the famous avenue at Pennsylvania (disambiguation). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:17, 18 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. MBisanz talk 11:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian politics in Australia[edit]

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

Article is simply a list of links to political parties and aligned organisations that serves no real value as an article in itself, that could not be handled by a category. There is no substantive text, discussion nor evidence or verifiable sources, or evidence of development. The topic already covered at length and more appropriately at the Christianity in Australia article already. Creating editor declined PROD. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article in its current form; totally plausible topic for an actual article one day though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. Not an article in its current form; totally plausible topic for an actual article one day though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note that the article creator, Torygreen84, was not informed of this deletion discussion. Anyway, it looks like he or she was in the middle of creating the article. I really dislike deletion tags being slapped on articles that are in the process of being written, so my preference is to wait to allow Torygreen84 time to expand it. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article was PRODed and the creator dePRODed, saying in their edit summary "that's why the wiki community can help" which suggests the editor was reliant on others to continue the article. This AfD is not because the article is incomplete, but because there is no viable reason for it -- Whats new?(talk) 23:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems likely this is a notable topic and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AusLondonder (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article creator has just been blocked for one week, and so will not be able to improve the article until after this AfD would normally close. StAnselm (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, as User:The Drover's Wife points out, this is a completely legitimate and potentially interesting topic for an article. Perhaps when User:Torygreen84 returns from their block they can add some flesh to it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • As promised, I had some time to dash off a couple of paragraphs of content. Still very embryonic and I welcome improvements (especially for tone and balance as I have strong personal views in this area). But my original rationale for draftiying is no longer valid and I think we should Keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Draftify per User:Lankiveil. StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Topic is certainly notable and encyclopedic. Article as it stands is unobjectionable except for its brevity, but the list of actual Australian political parties is valid. In effect, it is an article outline awaiting content. I say keep it, since articles that exist often attract content, but creating an article and even gathering that useful-looking ( I don't know much about Aussie politics) list of extinct and extant Christian parties takes the kind of work that often makes me think, this important topic needs an article, but starting one is too daunting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of the conservative parties are officially Christian - we would need a nuanced discussion describing in what way they're "Christian" (whatever that means). A mere list isn't good enough. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"officially" 3 on the list are not Christian, but all of the listed parties have demonstrably Christian origins and/or agendas that quite openly described as supporting or drawing on "Christian" values. (interpretations of Christian vales may differ.) That said, I'm not opposed to draftify. Merely I prefer to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the topic is better covered in the encompassing article Christianity in Australia and via categories. Still no establishment of why the topic is notable enough for its own topic, or why the aforementioned article can't handle it. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I point out that this article is not just brief, it actually contains no content apart from a restatement of the article title, and a "See Also" section. If we want to get technical, it's probably a valid CSD A3 scenario, although it probably doesn't need that much to get there. If I have some time this evening I might try and write a couple of sentences to upgrade it from "no content" to "stub" at least. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
All you have done is flesh out a topic with mostly unsourced content, which is better covered in the encompassing article Christianity in Australia. You have not established why this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article -- Whats new?(talk) 22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a poor article on a notable topic. It may be that the text requires TNT, but at the very least the list of specifically Christian parties is worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 13 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. Although the rationales against keeping the article are strong, there is consensus among the community for the article to be retained. By the way, has an article ever before successfully passed a GA review which coincided with an AfD?.. (non-admin closure) J947 02:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sober (Selena Gomez song)[edit]

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

(because new people quit participating on the talk page even though the "keep crowd" requested a roll call in multiple forums) --- article is about a song. not a single. not a "classic". not a signature song. The song did not chart, unless you count the "bubbling under" chart, which is the equivalent of "everybody gets a ribbon"...

Nothing to make it notable.

Notability is not inherited, therefore the artist's or the album's notability does not come into play. There is a reason why the redirect sat untouched for 17 months. It simply does not meet criteria for an article. Kellymoat (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. No, 1) the song was not released as a single, or 2) considered a "classic", or 3) classified as a "signature song", but none of these are reasons for deleting this article. Nor is the fact that the song didn't chart, or that the redirect was not expanded until recently. No one is arguing that the article be kept simply because Selena Gomez is notable. What matters is sufficient coverage in secondary reliable sources. Our collective time is probably better spent attempting to improve, not delete, the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:GNG apply for subjects that have their own guidelines - such as songs? Kellymoat (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kellymoat: Guidelines about music-related articles can be found here (Wikipedia:Notability (music)) and there is a separate section devoted to songs. Hope this helps. Songs are generally determined notable when they fit one or more of the following criteria: that it has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award, and has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. It is also strongly encouraged that there multiple reliable sources devoted to the song outside of album reviews. It is irrelevant if the song was released as a single or not or if it is considered a "classic" or a signature song (it is possible for an album track to notable enough for its own article, but it is much rarer in comparison to those on singles), as long as it fits those three qualifications. I would count the "bubbling under" chart as the song charting on something as it is an official Billboard chart, but it is typically encouraged that the articles have sources that demonstrate its notability (I feel that the quality of the sources is typically the deciding factor rather than charting or not). Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is what I have been saying from the beginning. Kellymoat (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kellymoat: I am not disagreeing with you; I was just trying to help by answering your question. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not !voting because I haven't dug into the sources. I'm curious though - why do you want to delete the page? You mentioned that you think it isn't notable but, getting back to basics for a second, what's the benefit of deleting it if (per your comments on the page) it's both well-written and informative about a song by someone famous? As I say, I don't take a view just now on whether or not it is 'notable' according to guidelines, but I'm struggling to see why deleting it would be helpful either way. Mortee (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
because we don't keep articles just because they are well written. Think about it - I could write a great article about you or I. It doesn't mean that WP needs to waste space on us. Who are we. (no offense, just trying to demonstrate the point). A poorly written article about a notable subject can be improved, but a non-notable subject is simply not notable regardless of how well the article is written.
And as far as the "it is from a famous person", that is the where the "notability is not inherited" comes in. There are 19 songs on that one album. Do we need 19 articles? Don't forget her other albums - do we need 100 articles for all of her songs? Articles must meet their own individual notability criteria. Simply being from a famous person is not a qualifier. WP is not free advertising for celebrities.
Kellymoat (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the reason I shouldn't have an article is that I haven't done anything that someone would be interested in, the facts about me couldn't be backed up by reliable sources, and there'd be a maintenance burden because someone would have to keep the article up to date as my life progressed. I don't see how any of those apply to a Selena Gomez song's article as long as it has sources to establish the facts. (If this risks veering away from a specific discussion about the article to a philosophical one, I don't mind moving it to one of our talk pages) Mortee (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I could write an article about you regardless of whether or not you "haven't done anything that someone would be interested in". And as far as verifiable sources, you would be surprised what information is available about you. The web knows everything. Kellymoat (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be genuinely interested to see how that went. Mortee (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment charts (or lack thereof) aren't deciding factors as Another Believer indicates, but the WP:NSONGS section of WP:Notability (music) (the relevant criteria for song articles) indicates that a track must be significantly covered outside of album reviews by credible sources not closely affiliated with its artist or label. Any song only covered in album reviews doesn't warrant an article. I so far see independent (outside of album reviews) detail on the track at Bustle (see https://www.bustle.com/articles/116008-who-is-selena-gomezs-sober-about-the-meaning-behind-the-song-is-very-deep) and PopCrush (see http://popcrush.com/selena-gomez-sober-listen/? and http://popcrush.com/best-songs-we-heard-this-week-selena-gomez-rebecca-fiona-jon-mclaughlin-more/). Not sure if Bustle is any good, but PopCrush isn't an adequate reference per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Either way, one good publication giving independent song coverage wouldn't be enough for an article. If more unaffiliated publications covering the song can be found, then this can be kept. Otherwise, it should be redirected to the Revival album. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: I've looked for other coverage and found this, this and this about a cover of the song (plus other articles in languages I don't speak, judging from headlines), plus mentions here (just a blog?) and here (only about charting news). I'll leave it to others to decide if the accumulated coverage establishes notability, perhaps narrowly. Mortee (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Headline Planet (charts article) is a dubious publication, not sure what to say about "SammaffiaOnline" or "TigerBeat" since I'm not familiar with those, but "On the air with Ryan Seacrest" and Seventeen are overall fine, and in these cases just barely give enough independent detail on the track (even if as a cover). I'm therefore going to say keep, but it would be ideal if additional good sources that aren't album reviews could be used and preferably focusing on Gomez's rendition. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See, I am looking at those celebrity gossip pages (Seventeen is the Celebrity Couple section) as talking about the two of them dating based on a song, not independently about the song. Kellymoat (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with SNUGGUMS in what he says but I'm going to furthered. Not enough independent coverage overall, pop crush is not reliable (unfortunately) and the others have to due with the album. The song only entered the bubbling, didn't get any award or "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups". Charlie Puth is not several is just one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reliable and verifiable sources in the article supports the individual claim of notability for this particular song. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Sober" was leaked several days prior to the record's release date, prompting multiple news outlets to report, review, and analyze the song. Gomez has given numerous in-depth interviews surrounding the track's unique background, inspiration, writing, and recording prior to and after the album's release. It also charted on the US Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart. The notion that an accomplishment like that is similar to "everybody gets a ribbon" is condescending, considering that the Bubbling Under chart is simply a 25-song extension of the Hot 100. In addition to that, a substantial amount of music critics highlighted "Sober" as a standout in their reviews and analysis of the song and Revival, many writing at-length about the composition and lyrics (much more than what should be included in the "music" and "songs" section of the Revival article), which were notable for the buzz they caused over their proposed connection to her relationship with Bieber. Therefore, I am voting Keep. Giacobbe talk 00:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is a "participating" award. You just said, it is an extension of an actual chart - which translate into "it wasn't good enough for the real chart but we didn't want you to feel bad so we changed the rules to include you."
And as to the rest of what you are saying -- the song was leaked before the album which made people talk about the song. Not that they were talking about the song, they were talking about the leak of the album. And then you said that they said it was the best song on the album, or how it related to the the Gomez/Beiber relationship. None of which is talking about the song by itself. It is all in connection to something else. Kellymoat (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your tone used to describe in the chart is condescending and un-encyclopedic, not helping your case. Bubbling Under is not a "participation" award, many recording artists struggle to even achieve the feat. Your statement that it translates to "it wasn't good enough for the real chart but we didn't want you to feel bad so we changed the rules to include you" is once again completely your own personal opinion, and has nothing to do with the notability of Bubbling Under. I don't know where you got this idea from, but it is an "actual chart"; an exclusive 25-song extension of the Hot 100 that can only be accessed by paying for a Billboard subscription.
I'm confused by the second half of your rebuttal? "Sober" leaked before Revival's release, 3 days to be exact. The articles referred to the song in itself, and not of the album leaking, which occurred several days later. Simply reading those sources would've told you that. Giacobbe talk 02:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I am being condescending towards "Bubbling Under. Why wouldn't I be? We've gone from top 10 to 20 to 40. There's charts for 100 and 200. Now we have, in this case, number 22. Hey, that sounds important - 22. Yeah, but it is actually 122 because once we hit 100, we start over at number 1? And according to what you just said, it isn't even a public chart, it is an exclusive from some website for members only? If that is the only chart that a song is on, then it didn't actually chart. Does Wikipedia need an article on the 121 songs that were in a higher position that week. Or the 121 songs that were high the next week. Or the 121 songs that were... Do you see my point. WP doesn't need that much wasted space on nothing songs.
So, we have a few articles about a leak, a few about an album, a few about a relationship, and a few about a different relationship. Unless you are a Selena Gomez fan, I don't see why this page deserves an article.Kellymoat (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Well, I'm not a Selena Gomez fan and I do feel this song passes the notability. FYI, "Sober" also peaked at number 36 on Billboard's Pop Digital Songs component chart, which measures the best-selling pop songs of the week in the US. This suggests "Sober" had a strong commercial impact, strong enough that is also entered the Bubbling Under chart, which is the additional 25 spots of the Hot 100. Carbrera (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep primarily from SNUGGUMS' comments, as I trust their judgement on this issue. I say that my vote is "weak" as I am not 100% confident about it, and I can understand the perspective from those who put up "delete" and "redirect" votes. I would say a "weak keep" only if the article can be adjusted to SNUGGUMS' point that "it would be ideal if additional good sources that aren't album reviews could be used and preferably focusing on Gomez's rendition". Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:NSONGS. There is absolutely nothing notable about this song, it's been bloated with lots of unnecessary and trivial details from album reviews and unreliable sources. The song at the most warrants 1 or 2 sentences in its parent album article. Abi-Maria (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Condense an article's worth of information into 1-2 sentences? That's a bit much, don't you think? Carbrera (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
A brief description of the song's sound and lyrics in the Revival article is all that's needed, it is only an album track after all. The first two paragraphs of this article are about Revival and not "Sober". While the rest of the article is bloated by reviews of Revival and mostly unreliable sources. More than half of the remaining sources are grossly unreliable: Popcrush, Popology Now, 411Mania, concreteonline are all blogs with no credibility. Redbrick is a student newspaper. Almost every Gomez song is interpreted by tabloids as being about Bieber, there's really nothing new here. "Sober" charting on Bubbling Under doesn't make it notable sorry. Abi-Maria (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said up above that I could write a big flowery article about anything. A poorly written article about a notable subject can be edited for improvement. But a well written article about a non-notable subject is still a non-notable subject.
The song sat as a redirect for over a year because someone was hoping it would someday become notable - it never did. I love how people will use a chart as a reason as to why a song needs an article, but no one ever answers the question as to if we need to write articles about the 121 songs that charted better than Sober. Kellymoat (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Personally, I'm having a bit of a hard time determining one way or another, because there are some serious WP:BOMBARD issues here. If the article is kept, substantial trimming is necessary. There's far too much content present that is referring about the album in general rather than this song in particular. It's bloating the article far too much - that info belongs in the album article, not here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it like a well-sourced love song, that it is. The need for editing is not a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After nearly a month of discussion, the consensus appears to be keep (8 to 3). Worthy and notable points have brought up from both sides, along with additional sources to prove notability. Also, the article is undergoing a GA review currently (however the process has been put on hold until the resolution of this AfD) which will put it under further analysis from the reviewer. I'm sure you're familiar with the AfD closure process so it is up to the reviewer if they would like to withdraw the nomination themselves, or I could contact an admin to close the discussion. Giacobbe talk 17:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GA review is completely irrelevant to this process, as notability is not one of the GA criteria. While it does make sense to put the GA review on hold while this nomination plays out—why spend time on it if the article ends up being deleted—any analysis on the GA reviewer's part is unlikely to shed more light on an AfD. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Revival (Selena Gomez album) I went through the sources and after carefully reading the arguments and sources, I have to agree that the song is not notable enough for a standalone article. The guideline we look at is WP:NSONG which says Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. It also clarifies that Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. The sources presented here are not enough. For example
  • Popcrush [1], [2] is not considered a reliable source.
  • Bustle [3] is essentially a contributor blog which we consider WP:SPS, and not a reliable source
  • Headlineplanet.com [4] Dubious, doesn't seem like a reliable source with a editorial board. Looks like a blog.
  • sammaffiaonline.com [5] Dubious WP:SPS claiming to be an online magazine. Doesn't seem to have an editorial board.
  • tigerbeat.com [6] The entire article is 4 sentences of clickbait (of which the song is mentioned in 1 sentence). The website seems like one of the numerous music gossip sites. Clearly not a reliable source
  • Seventeen [7]. The entire article is 3 sentences (about Charlie Puth randomly covering the song). There is nothing else here. This is not significant coverage.
  • iheart.com [8] 3 sentences again about the same event.
The coverage of the song, independently of the album, is very sparse in reliable sources. This doesn't help to pass WP:NSONG.
Bubbling under charts are not useful for establishing notability of a song.
The article is also heavily padded, with much of the details inherited from the album. This is also what pushes me towards a merge and redirect decision. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for breaking down the sources present in the article. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to do so and fully explain the reason behind your vote. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 17 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) 02:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Naseem[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:PROF, and fails even GNG because the references are essentially all from the places where he's worked, or that have given him money, and therefore not independent--they are most of them apparently self-written (or PRstaff-written) promotional bios. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • DGG I hope you will go and learn from the references, Few are about his career where he worked(For Bio). Others are about his notability and news. There is no promotional content, if you feel there is any promotional sentence you can help to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrolancer (talk • contribs) 05:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Promotional. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Article has been "reference bombed" with sources which do nothing to establish notability. Most of the references resumes or PR bio, which does not meet the independent criteria for notability. The remainder are trivial mentions or about organizations he works/worked for. None of the sources are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' which is required to meet WP:GNG. Current References:
  • 1-6, 8, 10-14, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 27, are either resumes or short publicity bios
  • 7 was written by subject
  • 9 is a short video for IPAL- subject mentioned as director
  • 16 short mention as a alumni of U of Colorado
  • 18 is a brief mention as a speaker at IDDS
  • 19 One line mention as IPLA Director
  • 21 Subject's website
  • 22 One line thanks to subject for assistance in preparing case study in UNESCO report
  • 23 Video of subject Encouraging Students To Dream Again
  • 26 Announcement of subject being a finalist for Rolex Young Laureate Awards
  • 27 One line mention as a member of IDIN Network
Loading an article with a large number of sources will not make someone notable. CBS527Talk 15:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff Quinn-Jytdog- DGG There are lots of things to do other than deleting the article. You must help to edit instead of deleting it. He is a Pakistani renowned ICTD Expert who is being honored by these international forums which references are added in the article.Macrolancer (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff Quinn-Jytdog- DGG Nothing is promotional and absolutely this is not about marketing anyone. I have added more references.Macrolancer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:PROF. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 16 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) 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Israeli television[edit]

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

There was a relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass creation of mostly empty articles, which resulted in some dissenting opinion preferring to send them through AfD.

Each of these articles are almost entirely empty, apparently mass copy/paste created by a single user. Even if they weren't empty, they're bare duplication of the relevant categories, and as far as I can tell, are for the most part lower quality duplication. The entire lot of them are one giant WP:Walled garden with respect to incoming links,

Now, there are definitely examples of these types of articles which are long-standing, have been created by other users, worked on by many editors, and contain substantial content beyond that which a category would contain. See for example 2010 in American television. However, the articles created by this particular user and nominated here have remained empty in some cases for years, and (intentionally or otherwise) have been created so as to just barely be disqualifying for A3.

Per the ANI discussion linked to above, there was a recent discussion on IRC which resulted in deletion of a spate of YEAR in French television articles being deleted. But there seemed to be insufficiently universal approval for expanding this drastically without AfD, so here we are. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC) TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - I was involved in the IRC discussion and the nominator has put it beautifully. The creator seems to have done this several times with <YEAR> in French television so I would personally suggest salting them after deletion. DrStrauss talk 18:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The articles are almost empty, and unlikely to be populated by any meaningful content. Besides, what constitutes an "event"? Going through these and other related pages, most just have TV episode announcements (e.g. <person> won <competition> on <show>). A category does this job better. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only well developed pages appear to be: 2014 in Australian television, 2014 in Canadian television, 2014 in Irish television, 2014 in Japanese television, 2014 in New Zealand television, 2014 in Philippine television, 2014 in Portuguese television, 2014 in Scottish television, 2014 in British television, and 2014 in American television.
Being as there are so many pages that should be looked it, this should really be changed to include a much broader reach and get feedback on all the underdeveloped country pages together. Otherwise Israel is just being singled out, when it should be part of a more comprehensive group. - GalatzTalk 22:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Galatz: If the current proposal succeeds, the plan is to continue to nominate. If several are successful, then the plan is to broaden the deletion discussion to include multiple countries at a time, given the precedent set by the previous AfDs. Israel was chosen 1) because it was just one of the recent ones the user had created in, and 2) because it seems most likely to inspire a sort of nationalistic drive to improve the articles to the point where they shouldn't be deleted, and thus seemed like one of the more conservative approaches tending toward preservation. Other than that, there was a broad discussion at ANI, which did not result in a particularly rock solid consensus for mass deletion, and nominating almost a thousand articles for deletion in a single AfD is logistically gargantuan. It took probably an hour to put the current report together, discuss it before nominating, and to tag all the pages appropriately. Doing this for a thousand articles might take days to compile and tag alone. TimothyJosephWood 22:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that those your "bad" list seem to also be creations by this same copy/paste user, and those in your "good" category do not. The intention is not to delete every such article, but specifically the ones created by this particular user, since they have just been mass creating empty articles for years now. TimothyJosephWood 22:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for now simply for lack of content and any evidence of notability. No prejudice to any of them being recreated (as per User:Galatz) if it is possible to demonstrate articles being developed to a standard similar to the ones they have mentioned. Ajf773 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Israeli articles without prejudice to recreation with developed and sourced content. I strongly oppose deletion of developed and sourced articles (XXXX in American, British, Australian, etc television) and oppose this AfD serving as rationale for widespread deletion of such articles, given there are major differences to the content and construction of individual articles. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whats new? Again, see the relevant ANI thread. This doesn't relate to articles of this type; it relates to articles from this user since they all seem to be almost entirely empty articles of this type. TimothyJosephWood 23:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just making the general point. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:41, 11 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 keep. WP:BEFORE. Notability is not based on article quality; clear consensus that sufficient sourcing exists for WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Tournament 2003[edit]

Unreal Tournament 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced article about a video game, with no strong claim of notability per WP:VG/S. Hakken (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. All the other Unreal games are on Wikipedia. Evercat (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "all the other Unreal games are on Wikipedia" is not a valid reason, but this game has been covered by many RSs and easily meets the GNG - just take a look at the critic reviews listed on Metacritic, for instance.--IDVtalk 09:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the recent deletion requests just let me speechless... Shaddim (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure if nominator @Hakken is familiar with WP:VG guidelines, but this is clearly a notable game by Wikipedia's standards. By the time they nominated it for deletion, it already used GameSpot, IGN and PC Gamer as references. Article can certainly be improved, but it is notable undoubtedly. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:11, 10 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) 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Casey[edit]

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

The article does not provide with any credible sources or content to support notability TopCipher (talk) 17:39, 9 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) 02:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Cox (Musician)[edit]

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

Can't find anything about the subject, plenty of other more notable Joes appear in Google News, but not a 19yr old musician. Citations are very poor also, going to subjects website. Article creator shares name with subject. (COI) L3X1 (distant write) 17:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Musicians do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist — we are not a free publicity platform for aspiring future notables. This claims nothing that would pass WP:NMUSIC in and of itself, and is referenced entirely to unreliable primary sources except for an invalid circular "reference" to another Wikipedia article and a single local newspaper article about his high school graduating class that fails to even contain a mention of his name, let alone actually being about him in any way. Simply put, it's just generally written far more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. And for added bonus, the article's creator identifies himself as the subject's manager, which means there's a direct conflict of interest, and started the article in draftspace before copying and pasting it directly into mainspace without submitting it for the necessary WP:AFC review, which is also not what draftspace is for. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he accumulates a valid NMUSIC claim and the substantive media coverage needed to carry it over WP:GNG, but nothing stated or sourced here is enough to get him in the door today. I wish him luck, but it's not "get a Wikipedia article to help publicize you while you try to make it" — it's "make it and then you'll get a Wikipedia article". Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. (And if it's resurrected can it have a lower-case "m" please). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom/Bearcat.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 16 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) 02:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whalenburg Stack Dryer[edit]

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

This unreferenced article is about a single non-notable industrial facility. A search for reliable sources to support notability turns up mostly pages that mirror this Wikipedia article. Edgeweyes (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.The company mentioned in the article, Target Products, Ltd., does exist and does sell sand [9] but I am unable to find any source (other than apparent mirrors of, or items clearly based upon, this Wikipedia article) to verify the existence of the specific sand-and-gravel flash-drying facility described here, much less any indications that the facility or its technological system received attention from independent reliable sources or any other basis for finding it to be notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 9 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) 02:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Hackers Club[edit]

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

Found no notability for this organisation. The references provided are just about either hacking or a passing by reference by users which are in no way credible. Most of the references even don't say anything about this firm. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and failure of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG as already stated; the article is promotional in its nature and intent Spiderone 09:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional and lack of Gen Notability (SPOI (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 16 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) 02:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle of Fasting[edit]

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

i believe that there is no reason for The Miracle of Fasting article as there is almost no encyclopedic content there is almost nothing on the book in this article and we are not supposed to have articles promoting peoples teachings whether good bad or otherwise Jonnymoon96 (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't find anything that suggests coverage in independent reliable sources - mostly mentioned in blog posts and the like. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mere PROMO for a non-notable book. gNews search: [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Paul Bragg which mentions this book in the Legacy section. Current sourcing is a link to the book itself. I found some articles with coverage of this book. However those were primarily about the author. Russian language article from 2013, brief mention in another 2013 article. Not enough about the book to satisfy WP:NBOOK.
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:TNT. It reeks of spammish, peacocky language. We are not a web host for every health book; we are a private charity. There are no independent sources. Even if this stub could be sourced well, it's so badly written as an advertorial that it would have to be gutted and written from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 16 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. WP:G4; no improvements in sourcing from the previous version already discussed and deleted at AFD. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LIONE[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails the notability for music criteria. - TheMagnificentist 14:24, 9 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. I have also asked that it be salted, given the rather long history of re-creation and re-deletion, as well as the blocked user issue. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaman Ali[edit]

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. No indication of notability. A Scholar search did not turn up anything to show he passes WP:NSCHOLAR, and not nearly enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like an advertisement for his book, which looks to be self-published. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


But Zaman Ali page is all true and there is nothing incorrect in it.Alvin Erich (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give time soner there will be plenty of sources will be added.Alvin Erich (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin Erich (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing more than a puff-piece for a new self-published book. Not a notable author, not a notable academic. Yunshui 雲水 16:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on someone purporting to have written "one of the best book in Philosophy", sourced to his shiny new Goodreads page where he repeats the claim. Not big on humility, it appears. No evidence that anyone else has noticed. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BASIC. The claim is absurd and unsubstantiated and the page is effectively promotional, so I am also flagging for CSD A7/G11. AllyD (talk) 16:40, 9 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) 02:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronic Mansion[edit]

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

Souces do not establish notability TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Seems to fail GNG. South Nashua (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see any reliable, independent sources to establish notability.Glendoremus (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything when I looked. The only thing I found was this, which looks to have been written by a random site user. I'd recommend redirecting, but offhand it looks like the author's page has some issues with notability as well, given that a lot of his sourcing is user submitted content - ie, WP:SPS. I think I will likely nominate his page for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 10 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 What We Live For. Consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 18:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Born to Run[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NMUSIC, and while it gets a lot of hits on searches, they are all of the simple mention in article about either the band or the album. Both the band and the album are notable, but can't find enough in-depth coverage of the song to rise to the level of passing WP:GNG. Should be redirect, particularly in its current poorly sourced condition, but an editor continues to insist on recreating the article, without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 12:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to album article. Not independently notable. --Slashme (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to What We Live For. This is simple and we shouldn't waste too much editor time debating deletion vs. redirect. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, Another Believer, please see my response on your talk page. Onel5969 TT me 16:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to What We Live For per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 10 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 keep. AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 05:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kaiga[edit]

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

    Sawongam (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPEEDY KEEP a lack of references is NOT a valid reason for deletion, if sections need expanding then expand them! Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep - per WP:GEOLAND. DrStrauss talk 18:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I've added the official Census ref, so this subject very plainly meets the requirements of WP:GEOLAND as noted above. It should be noted that there at least one other village in India that shares this name according to Census search results, so disambiguation of the title may be warranted. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:08, 10 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; author blanked the page. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Max Koon[edit]

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

    Self-created article, non-notable. PROD removed by COI editor/creator. Only sources are social media and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything better Melcous (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 9 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) 02:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kay Lee Ray[edit]

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

    Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. The only links are match stats and nothing else. Nothing in-depth or secondary. Domdeparis (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Because the "professional wrestling career" section documents exactly that, her professional wrestling career. Cagematch is one of the most reliable sources for match results and is used in countless pro wrestling articles across the site. I suggest you read WP:PW and see what are listed as credible sources. TDOldSpice (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2017 (GMT)

    Comment Hi @TDOldSpice: I totally agree that they are considered credible sources by the project which is fine and dandy but the WP:GNG states very clearly that there has to be significant coverage and "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Your sources do not do this. She fails WP:ENTERTAINER too. All pages have to meet GNG regardless of recommendations by different projects. I left a message on the talk page and originally tagged it as possibly not meeting notability, this was ignored I then PRODDED it with a detailed explanation this was ignored and removed so I had no choice. This is not the first article that you have created with the same problem this one was deleted too I suggest you read the comments especially those about independent news coverage by @NotTheFakeJTP: who is a member of the PW project. Domdeparis (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 9 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 merge to Mario. Consensus met. (non-admin closure) J947 18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    National Mario Day[edit]

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

    There is no indication of meeting WP:GNG. This is not a holiday, as claimed, it is just a publicity gimmick for the company which distributes this game. The coverage is either self-published or passing mentions in puff pieces: none of the in-depth coverage expected of an encyclopedic article. Gronk Oz (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. That a couple of minor sources have reprinted a press release is not an indication of notability. There's absolutely no indication that this is getting any significant coverage even within the VG industry (even Nintendo themselves don't appear to do anything to mark it other than a desultory YouTube video last year which got less than 200,000 views worldwide, chickenfeed to the press department of a global multinational), let alone in the wider world. ‑ Iridescent 08:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait - Until after MAR10 passes. Perhaps if some news outlets make reference to it we can rethink deletion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless this is speedy deleted this discussion will be opened 7 days meaning there will be more than enough time to add any potential coverage from news oulits before fhis closes.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, since I wasn't initially so detailed due thinking this was a simple, open and shut case: The sourcing is very weak here.Very few say anything other than "March 10 is Mario day because Mar 10 looks like Mario. Do Mario related stuff to celebrate." Sources are either very brief and don't offer significant coverage (like this or this) or instantly veer off into general discussion about the Mario franchise. With so little to be said, and its notability entirely entrenched with the franchise, I feel like its best covered as a part of the Mario#Legacy section. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Mario, which can adequately house whatever needs to be said on this topic. Please wait for an overabundance of coverage specific to the topic before starting separate articles. czar 20:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: IP editor 86.20.193.222 left The following comments on my Talk page, that might be relevant:--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw it on "New Pages" - I didn't write it. I was about to CSD-tag it, but googled to discover it was a real thing with pretty good coverage, and decided to try to fix it up.
    I don't think it's fair in your AFD nom to say "The coverage is either self-published or passing mentions". Only one of the sources is Nintendo; the others are respectable independent RS - magazines, newspapers, and so forth. I can't see how it is passing mentions, when it is the subject of the articles in those publications - they're not just mentioning it in another article, the articles are *about* it.
    There's not *that* much to say about this event, but not all Wikipedia articles need to be GA or FA. It's not a single line; it's encyclopaedic, very well-referenced facts, and neutral.
    Please note, this day is not a promo thing by Nintendo; it existed before they even knew about it. Nintendo are using it to give a bit of money to charity, and are discounting a few of their games - see [11].
    There's quite a lot of extra coverage like that, if you look around; but if I put that, I'll probably be accused of 'link spam'. Examples, [12] [13] [14] [15] [16].
    AAnyway - I don't think I will be participating in the AFC because yes, I'm disillusioned. Bottom line, it's an encyclopaedia, and I think people might wonder what National Mario Day is. The article answers that, in a neutral, well-referenced way. I do not think it's better to 'merge' it into another article, because it's not about a specific game title, it doesn't fit well.
    It's a real thing, it's notable, it has significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. It should have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.167.158 (talk • contribs)
    Right, it exists, and there are sources to prove it, but that doesn't mean it needs a standalone article. When there's very little to be said about something, and its entire claim to notability hinges on an obvious parent subject (Mario), subjects are often merged. To be clear, if we do a "merge/redirect", people will still be able to "read up on Mario Day", its just that, when people search it up, it'll take them to a little blurb about it in the main Mario article instead of this short stub of an article. Also note that the "Mario" article is about the character itself, not the game series, so it would in fact make sense to put the information there. Also, while there are some reliable sources out there, almost every source you listed above would not be reliable in the Wikipedia sense. Websites like "NintendoWire" and "Gamingbits" are all obscure blogs and fan pages. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really fit into another article, it's a separate topic. It can be mentioned and linked in many - about the game series, etc.
    If merged, it won't be in categories such as Category:Unofficial observances. It will most likely be de-linked from March 10 too.
    I know someone will scream 'otherstuff', but honestly, why is this different from Star Wars Day?
    There are literally hundreds of tiny articles made every day; for example, recently, I've seen lots on species of spiders, Thiratoscirtus harpago, Thiratoscirtus gambari, Thiratoscirtus monstrum, Thiratoscirtus mirabilis...and so on hundreds more. All are 1 sentence. I think that's fine, great, encyclopaedic, and one day someone might want to look up "Thiratoscirtus harpago". But I think it's a LOT more likely someone might hear about "National Mario Day", and want to look that up.
    Please have a quick look on Google right now; I think you'll find "National Mario Day" shows a large description from "nationaldaycalendar.com". Wouldn't it be better if that was the Wikipedia page?
    People around the world are having a bit of fun today, dressing as Mario, playing games, raising money for charity and so on, see [17] [18]. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. If merged, the non-free image would be deleted. I think that picture, with the MAR-10 calender, explains the concept to readers in a clearer way than text can.86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Images, category use, what people are doing on social media. None of this has any bearings on deletion discussions. As you even seem to recognize yourself, your reasoning is based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and arguments to avoid. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 86 predicted someone would call out OTHERSTUFF, and you proved him right.

      The 4:20 of cannabis culture is another example. While Star Wars Day and 4:20 may have started as cute notions, they (1) captured the imagination of lots of people; (2) and then reliable sources wrote about them in enough detail to measure up to our inclusion criteria.

      When Mario Day grew popular enough that: (1) libraries and other institutions introduced programs to help parents bond with their children on Mario Day; (2) and RS, like the Christian Science Monitor, wrote about it -- Mario Day was pushed over our notability criteria finishing line. Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Of course I proved him right, I was right to. Unless there's some documented proof that "Star Wars Day" has survived any sort of deletion discussion or merge discussion, its textbook WP:OSE. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, but how about a meaningful answer? Are you saying OSE is just a crap shot -- so Star Wars Day and 4:20 snuck under the wire, while, Mario Day, which shares many elements with them, recently started, is still vulnerable to be strangled at its birth... Geo Swan (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea. I'm not knowledable with the Star Wars or marijuana fandom. I'd do research, but considering how it'd have no actual bearing on this AFD, I don't really have any interest. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent". Merge is inappropriate, because it is a distinct topic.86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it distinct from the franchise? Its literally a celebration of the franchise and nothing else. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Mario. Most of the sources are press releases, talk about Mario the character instead of the actual Mario Day Event, or organizations holding an event about the day which do not talk about the event so much as they are a promotion for the company. The sources left are not reliable for establishing separate notability. That said, I agree it is worth a mention in the Mario article. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please forgive my stupidity, but I am very confused by "Most of the sources are press releases". None of them are. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? You just added a press release minutes ago. I imagine you're not familiar with what Newswire.ca/CNW Group is then? They're literally a press release company. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in the edit-summary, I copied that over from the Mario article - because you'd complained about another reference.
    What about all the others? The Escapist, 4players, Tristate Update, Star Tribune, Hardcore Gamer, Destructiod, Gamecubicle? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Press Releases can be used to cite basic, objective facts, like sales figures. They just can't be used to prove notability, because proving notability requires third party sourcing, whereas Press Releases are first party accounts. So, you can use them in articles (sparingly, as they're also usually quite promotional in tone/content) but not as a third party account to prove notability. But as Zetta states, being press releases is just one of three issues he found with the sources. The other crucial issue is that the sources say very little of the actual holiday. For example, Hardcore Gamer here is a reliable source. But it doesn't provide significant coverage on Mario Day. Its extremely short and serves mostly as a setup to post a Youtube video created by Nintendo themselves. The Destructoid article is pretty much the same - extremely short, no substance lead up to Nintendo's own video. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the tutorial. I'm glad you conceed that "Most of the sources are press releases" is utterly incorrect; perhaps you could strike it?
    I'm really not interested in arguing; I've made my points, and you seem to have already made up your mind about this.86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't be sure, since ZettaComposer said it, not me, but I don't think he meant "Most of the sources are press releases" as a stand-alone idea. If you read his whole sentence, (it is rather long) he's saying that most of the sources fall into a number of issues, press releases being the first of many examples listed off. To paraphrase in a shorter, easier to understand manner, I think he meant something more like "Most sources are press releases, stray off-topic from the subject, or are of a promotional manner". Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is what I meant. I could have written my original sentence above better. :) ZettaComposer (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes more sense; I'm sorry. I misunderstood or misread, I get it now: you meant like, "Most are X, Y or Z".
    Look, we're all here to build an encyclopaedia, right? This article is, honestly, not "promotional". Nintendo didn't start this thing (but of course do not object to it!); it's fans of the games, having a bit of fun.
    There are other sources; more have appeared today. I'm reluctant spend more hours on it though because, right now, it looks like it will be "merged" - which seems to me just as bad as deletion, because it'll end up as a single sentence in the other article. People won't be able to expand it, most people won't even know about it. I'm convinced there is plenty for a short article; I'd be happy to remove anything that wasn't considered a reliable source. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Articles for Deletion, like many areas of Wikipedia, has a tendency to bring out the best in people. :) I would not worry though. As Sergecross mentioned earlier in the discussion, if this article is merged then a redirect can be created. People can reach the merged content by typing in "National Mario Day" in the search box, and that will take them to the section on National Mario Day in the Mario article. That section of the Mario article can then be edited and expanded. If enough reliable sources appear in the future for this article to stand on its own, then this article can be recreated. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand about a 'redirect', but - apart from that not letting people expand it - it means the image will be deleted, and I think that does help explain it. Also, it'd not be in categories like Category:Unofficial observances, or linked from March 10. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're overestimating the importance of categories here. They're really not that big of a deal or that prominently viewed. The image...isn't really all that big of a deal either, but that being said, it could also be argued that it could be added to the "Legacy" section of the Mario article too. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me for undoing an {{outdent}} someone put in here. I found it confusing, as it interfered with me putting my replies to earlier comments at the right level of indentation....

      Sergecross73, I see your defence of ZettaComposer, and I wonder whether it wouldn't be better if you based the opinion you voiced here on the notability of the topic, not on your opinion on the current state of the article's references...

      Deletion is supposed to be based on the notability of the topic itself, meaning, we should keep and tag for improvement a weak article when the underlying topic measures up to our notability criteria. I just checked WP:BEFORE, and found it only advises those considering becoming nominators to do their own search for references, before they made a nomination for deletion. BEFORE doesn't explicitly advise those weighing in with an opinion at AFD to make sure it is an informed opinion. IMO it should, extend this advice to everyone considering weighing in.

      I did my own web search, found additional references that weren't press releases, or articles published in publications devoted to Nintendo, and included some. This topic itself is notable. RS make it notable. That shoule be all that is required for us to voice a "keep", not a "delete" or "merge". Geo Swan (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sergecross73, I have some additional advice for you. You are engaging in an activity here which can very highly erode other contributors ability to AGF. You are both (1) weighing in here with delete opinions; (2) editing the article.

      By weighing in here, with a delete opinion, means you don't think the article can be improved by editing to the point of measuring up to our standards. You have voiced your concerns, here, that the article references fall short. So why would you be removing references, and removing whole paragraphs, as you did in these edits?

      I have no real dog in this fight. But when good faith contributors have worked hard on an article on a topic they feel strongly merits inclusion, it is best for the project if they are allowed a free hand to try to bear in mind the concerns voiced in the AFD, and work to address them, during the AFD period.

      Unless you are excising actual slander, why, in heavens' name, would you edit an article you are on record is hopeless, and can't be improved. If it is really hopeless it will soon be deleted, and those weaknesses won't matter.

      I don't have a dog in this fight, but I assure you, when I am making a strong effort to improve an article, during the AFD, and someone who voiced a "delete" is also still editing the article, it is a great strain to continue to AGF. Why would you put your fellow good faith contributors under this unnecessary strain?

      What happens if the AFD then closes as "delete"? Those who worked hard to take the concerns voiced in the AFD into account can't help thinking: "Grrr. If SergeCross73 hadn't edit warred with me I could have improved the article enough that it would have closed as "keep".

      So, please, if you voiced a "delete", hands-off the article, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I find your comments baffling for a number of reasons. Your criticisms don't make any sense:
    • I defended Zetta's comments because they were misinterpreted by the IP editor. This is something Zetta confirmed as true, and the IP now understands they misunderstood. What is wrong with this exchange? I helped solve a misunderstanding.
    • I don't know why you'd lecture me about nominating and BEFORE. I did not nominate this article, or encourage anyone to do so. I've also made many comments about how weak the sourcing is, and how many/most proposed are either unreliable, or do not constitute significant coverage.
    • I thought my edit summaries were quite clear, and expressed valid points. This edit was made because they had nothing to do with the subject. It would also be more accurately described as "two unrelated sentences" than "a paragraph" as you suggested. When I was reverted, I did not edit war, but rather, started a talk page discussion, where the IP has refused to engage in discussion, despite being the one to suggest it in the first place. I did not edit war - I removed it once, and did not revert again. Additionally, I later made this edit because I had expressed that it was an unreliable source, and the IP, addressing this, had already added another source to replace it, but forgotten to remove it. All valid actions.
    • Overall, the entire premise of your "You voted delete so keep your hands off the article" is ludicrous. My stance is Merge, not Delete, and there is no such rule. I'm free to make any good-faith edits to the article as the AFD goes on. I felt that the IP was bloating the article with off-topic content to avoid a merge conclusion.
    • The irony in all of this is all of your AGF lectures, when you haven't done the least for me. There's no bad faith here whatsoever. I'm very active in creating and maintaining Mario and Nintendo related things on Wikipedia. There's no ill-will or bias going on here. I just don't believe there's enough here to warrant a standalone article. Which doesn't seem that crazy considering how many "Merge" !votes we've got going here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Mario. I think everyone above has pretty much covered it. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Merge - I had seen this AfD earlier but hadn't really taken the time to look into it.... then I got a newsletter from Nintendo themselves advertising MAR10 DAY, so I thought "okay, it's a thing now, let's look at it" -- and the biggest problem I can think of is that we don't know if it's just this year, or if it will become a yearly event. If it becomes recurrent we can spin it back out at a later time. Otherwise I would actually merge it to List of non-video game media featuring Mario, even though the description of "a celebratory date" as "media" is kind of iffy I guess. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Salvidrim: Two of the references show that it's from at least 2014 [19] [20]. It's already annual. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Amending my position per the sustained coverage in RSes over multiple years. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Mario. Per other "Merge" reasons. Yoshi24517Chat Online 04:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - we don't need to fork every little PR event / fan stunt. Brianga (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- there is sufficient RS coverage to meet our inclusion criteria.

      Sorry, but I have to wonder how many of those weighing in here actually took a look at the references. The Christian Science Monitor focussed an article around how Mario Day was an opportunity for parents to bond with their children, and named Mario Day events parents could take their children to -- in 2014.

      We are not supposed to weigh in on AFDs based on whether we personally think a topic is trivial, or silly. We should base our opinion on whether the professional editors and professional authors we rely on -- at WP:RS -- think a topic is worth writing about. Well, if you look, you see serious RS have written about this topic. That is all that is required. A delete based on a personal opinion the topic is trivial or silly is one of the arguments named in WP:Arguments to avoid -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not a single person has made an IDONTLIKEIT argument. The clear consensus arising is that the subject does not receive enough dedicated coverage, dedicated specifically to the subject. There are very few sources that aren't extremely short or veer off into general discussion of the Mario franchise right away. There's very few sources that say very little about the actual subject. A "Merge" conclusion is a completely valid, policy-based conclusion to come to. You're free to disagree with that conclusion, but its outright wrong to say its not a policy based conclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how you can say there's not "enough dedicated coverage", when almost all the referenced articles are entirely about the subject.
    There are hundreds of 1-line articles created every day with a single reference; why does this one need merging? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they aren't significant coverage. They're either extremely short, or stray from the subject. Like your Metro source. Anyone who reads through the article can see that literally only the first 2 sentences of the source discuss the holiday. All of the rest of the article are just random generic Mario factoids. It's almost entirely about Mario itself, not the holiday. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The part about "Italians in Chicago" explains the term was used in the 80s for an an annual gala dinner. Absolutely nothing to do with Nintendo.
    Thus, it would be entirely inappropriate on an article about the Nintendo franchise, but entirely relevant to an article about the annual holiday. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we'd just remove that stuff on the merge process, which is original research to have in the article right now to begin with, unless you've got sources showing any connection towards the subject and these random factoids. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The oh-so-subtle connection is that it's about an annual event, on March 10th, called "Mario Day", because of MAR-10 looking like Mario. It is about the subject of this article 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of the article is Nintendo's Mario Day, not "every holiday on March 10th" or "Every instance of people pointing out March 10th looks like Mario". If it's relevant, you should have no problem providing a source proving the connection to the actual subject. Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Mario. This is notable, but it doesn't really need its own article. TheJoebro64 talk 06:48 PM, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    It doesn't seem to meet any of the 'reasons' in WP:MERGEREASON. That page also says avoid merging if "topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short". It's not that short. If it's notable, why force it into another article? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One reason it should be merged is that it isn't an actual holiday; it seems to me to be some sort of Twitter or Instagram thing or hashtag. It'd work good as part of Mario's impact and legacy, but it really should only have a page if the President declares it a national holiday. I highly doubt he will... TheJoebro64 talk 09:58 PM, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, it's only claim to notability is tightly entrenched to the parent article - Mario. With like half of the already short current stub just being general Mario factoids, it'd be better covered in the main Mario article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Mario#Legacy. Doesn't yet seem to have had either the broad coverage or commercial exploitation described in the Star Wars Day article. --McGeddon (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Mario#Legacy. It has coverage in secondary sources, but not notability independent of the Mario franchise. Imalawyer (talk) 17:54, 15 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) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Coleen Christie[edit]

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

    Delete. WP:BLP of a single-market television journalist, striking an advertorial tone ("Coleen is an animal lover whose hobbies include cooking, baking and learning as much as she can about science, politics, art, sports, nutrition, history.") and, as these things almost always are, referenced exclusively to her (former) primary source profile on the station's website. As always, a journalist does not get a Wikipedia article by slightly rewriting her own staff bio from the website of her own employer; she gets a Wikipedia article when she's the subject of enough coverage in independent sources to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete single-market broadcast professionals are almost never notable for that. The sources are 1 from her employer and 2 a non-notable source, so not anywhere near enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No significant independent coverage or indication of notable achievements. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as per Bearcat comment.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:16, 16 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) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Carmichael (ice hockey)[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete passes neither the notability guidelines for hockey nor the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Gained some honors, but only in the semi-pro ranks, the bottom rung of the minor leagues. It's not as if we give our awards for peewee MVPs either. Ravenswing 08:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 16 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) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaun Arvai[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines, and for which he received a community ban from new article creation. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject -- a journeyman in the low minors and semi-pro loops -- meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable ice hockey player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:19, 16 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) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Smale[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines, and for which he received a community ban from new article creation. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject -- a journeyman in the low minors and semi-pro leagues -- meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The huge number of these articles on non-notable hockey players that have come to AfD make me began to wonder if we should create a policy that makes it so all articles need to be afirmiately accepted for creation before they are created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has some coverage (e.g., [21] but I don't see enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 16 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) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Sich[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not enough coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:44, 13 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) 02:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan Salvis[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines, and for which he received a community ban from new article creation. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject -- a journeyman in the low semi-pro leagues -- meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:25, 10 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) 02:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyle Rank (ice hockey, born 1987)[edit]

    Kyle Rank (ice hockey, born 1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines, and for which he received a community ban from new article creation. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject -- a journeyman in the semi-pro ranks -- meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:24, 10 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) 02:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Josh McQuade[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines, and for which he received a community ban from new article creation. This case is one of Dolovis' usual, to declare (falsely) that gaining honors in a semi-pro league satisfies WP:NHOCKEY, which it doesn't. No evidence the subject meets the WP:GNG. Ravenswing 16:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:25, 10 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) 02:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bret Tyler[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines, and for which he received a community ban from new article creation. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject -- a journeyman in the semi-pro low minors with an ephemeral, undistinguished career -- meets the GNG. Ravenswing 15:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete a non-notable hockey player. I wonder if someone could do a group nomination of articles created by Dolovis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Bad idea, unfortunately. It's been tried, but there are two factors. First off, I'm sure you've seen a faction of the AfD community increasingly hostile to bundled nominations, which in my personal POV has to do more with a hatred of deletion policy altogether than anything else. The second is that Dolovis wasn't always wrong. He did create some articles about notable players, and some of the NN players for whom he created articles became notable down the road. However much of a pain in the ass it is, we do have to look at each case. Ravenswing 04:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:24, 10 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) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Chad Rycroft[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines, and for which he received a community ban from new article creation. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject -- in this case, a player with an ephemeral career in the semi-pro low minors -- meets the WP:GNG. Ravenswing 15:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are way too many articles on non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per User:Ravenswing. That article's creator's talk is something to behold. CityOfSilver 03:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately. Just someone whose definition of consensus and guidelines was "Whatever I want them to mean." An amazingly tendentious fellow. Ravenswing 03:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 10 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) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Levi Lind[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject -- a career fringe player in semi-pro action -- meets the WP:GNG. Ravenswing 15:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 10 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) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Krelove[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:32, 9 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) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Vigier[edit]

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

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines, and for which he received a community ban from new article creation. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject -- a journeyman in the semi-pro ranks -- meets the WP:GNG. Ravenswing 16:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:27, 10 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) — Yash talk stalk 21:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ekrokpe[edit]

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

    This doesn't demonstrate that notability is met. See this AfD for more. J947 05:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly Keep – Appears to possibly meet WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place, as it appears to be denoted by Nigeria's Department of Public Works in this paywalled source, which refers to it as "Ekrokpe-Asagba" (I wish I could access the rest of the source). Here's another source with some mentions. North America1000 08:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep and possible move following a discussion both pending on whether Ekrokpe is the same as Ekrokpe–Asagba – See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyara for more. I think that Ekrokpe–Asagba is a bus route. J947 02:47, 10 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 keep. per WP:SKCRIT. Though "not a withdrawal" the nominator is no longer calling for its deletion. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyara[edit]

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

    With 3 Google News results, I doubt this town is notable or meets the general notability guideline. I am open to any counter-arguments based on policies or guidelines. Note to creator: I can help you get used to the vast establishment of Wikipedia if you want; feel free to post a message on my user talk page. J947 05:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Eyara is a village and not a town in Delta State. I believe it shouldn't be deleted.Zazzysa (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:31, 9 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) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Duhow Rubber[edit]

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

    Unsourced article, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH Flat Out (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete our edits must have crossed. I PRODed for the same reason a minute before the nomination. Non-notable company that fails GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:18, 9 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 is for the article to be retained. North America1000 10:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Abu l-Hasan Ali I[edit]

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

    Delete: as unsourced bio; Google search does not indicate any independemtly reliable sources (i.e. non-mirror sites, Wikia) re subject, although name is confusingly similar to several other individuals of same rank. Quis separabit? 18:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I called it a "hoax". If the article is improved I will, however, reconsider. Quis separabit? 02:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: References were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as it is now sourced and meets GNG.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He was a political leader and a near sovereign, he was clearly notable. We have sources now, so it is clearly not a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious keep -- Technically he was not a sovereign ruler, since he owed allegiance to the Ottoman sultan, but for practical purposes he was in the nature of a king. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Very obviously as ruler of a significant entity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 15 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) J947 18:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Calvary Church of Santa Ana[edit]

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

    Non-notable church, no coverage in reliable sources independent of subject. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I have reverted to a better, less spammy version of the article and added a reference. However, I can't find any other coverage in reliable, independant sources. I don't think there is enough here to prove notability, but I am willing to change my !vote if any more sources can be found. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)@Sarahj2107: to take a second look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I did a modest expand source. I like to check sources before dismissing a church as non-notable, and find that one of the crucial aspects of checking is to get the search term right, in this case, I searched "Calvary Chursh" + "Santa Ana" instead of "Calvary Church of Santa Ana" What came up on a Proquest news archives search was over 1,000 news articles about funerals held at the church. The sheer volume indicated that this is no small-potatoes church. So I scanned a few of the pages, clicking on those article that were not news accounts of funerals. Turns out that it is - or at least was at the time it dedicated its enormous campus - the largest Church in Orange County - a populous County dense with churches (I mean that literally, this is conservative Christian territory); half the member states of the United Nations have fewer people than Orange County. Very large, notable congregation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- A local church with 4500 members is probably large enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They had 4500 members in 1992. They probably have fewer members than that today since most churches have been shrinking over the last two decades. Regardless of the number of members today, this is a fallacious argument. There are people with millions of subscribers on YouTube who don't warrant their own article on Wikipedia. The most recent sources E. M. Gregory provided are from more than twenty years ago; they both deal with a sex scandal. There is no ongoing significant coverage of the church in non-local media. Jrheller1 (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jrheller1: Notability is not temporary, it doesn't matter that the sources are from 20 years ago they still count towards establishing notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But there was never any significant coverage. The only coverage was the very brief coverage relating to the sex scandal back in 1992 (and the only major newspaper reporting was LA times). The reference from 1967 is a notice that a new sanctuary was being built; this is no more significant than a birth notice or obituary in the New York Times. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 15 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. as G12 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 16:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Madavoor sri mahadeva temple[edit]

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

    foreign language Stephreef (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Perhaps getting it translated would help. Lourdes 17:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:07, 9 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) 02:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sexy-J[edit]

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

    Very poorly cited article. Lot of hits, but couldn't find enough in-depth articles from independent and reliable sources about this particular group which would indicate they pass WP:GNG, and nothing in the article indicates significance, let alone that they pass WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 11:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the author's recently created articles are currently at AfD, and this article was apparently created to prop up the articles being discussed at AfD. At best, this is a very early draft & clearly not ready for main space. If the topic is indeed notable, then an uninvolved editor would create it some time down the road. There's no rush to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: There's enough notable singers in this band so in my opinion the article is worth at least a couple of weeks of improvement before we decide anything. --Gstree (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - after the walled garden has begun to be pierced, there are only 2 members of marginal notability left. Onel5969 TT me 11:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per K.e.coffman. Insufficient indicia of notability. Montanabw(talk) 08:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete assertions and non policy arguments do not overcome a basicly massive lack of notability. Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per above, Can't find any indepth coverage, Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 03:03, 14 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) 02:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ProjectLocker[edit]

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

    Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Article sources are mostly primary. MB 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Hi, can you please suggest some ways by which I can improve the quality of the article so that it is not deleted from Wikipedia? I have worked a lot on this article and I would really like to see this page remain on Wikipedia.Srivassumit (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: As was said above, the provided coverage is almost entirely primary, supporting a feature-list article (which appears to have been created as a coursework task). I am not seeing independent coverage which exceeds passing mentions and indicates encyclopaedic notability. The original contributor has now copied the article to their user page (including categories, which should be deleted) so their work has been preserved and could be taken through the WP:AFC process if reliable 3rd party sources can be identified and added. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 9 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. MBisanz talk 11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Echostage[edit]

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

    Still not seeing enough refs to verify notability. Last nomination for deletion [32] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for flagging - it's my first new page - I've updated the page with three additional references. Please let me know if you have other issues. matt.r.eldridge (talk · contribs · email) 16:30 15 February 2017 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Venues of this size are usually notable. Yjr sourcing is still a little weak, but I'd be surprised if it isn't possible to find better. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, reluctantly. This place seems like it ought to be notable. There is one reference with significant coverage from a Reliable Source - the Washington Post - about its opening. But one Reliable Source is not enough to meet WP:GNG, and I couldn't find any others in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:03, 9 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 Dunya University of Afghanistan (DUA). MBisanz talk 11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Swiss UMEF University[edit]

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

    99% of the sources provided for this article do / did not mention the subject once. None of the sources provided are from books, magazines, newspapers, or other reliable sources. The one document linked as a source that actually does mention the university is a single PDF page noting that the university is a candidate for accreditation somewhere. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Darouet (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Fails WP:GNG. I've been looking at this article too, and this is nothing but a PR piece for a dubious institution. As far I can tell this is not an accredited school. The verifiable sources are generally for claims that don't concern the "school" (e.g., what a particular certification or group is) and the claims that do relate to UMEF directly are either unsourced or fail verification. For example, the claim that UMEF was a part of the voluntary United Nations Global Compact not only failed verification, but it turned out that UMEF had been expelled. The only way this institution might be notable is in the negative sense. If there are sufficient sources mentioning it as an unaccredited institution, or scam, or degree mill, or whatever it happens to be, an article might be justified. Meters (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nominator. I tried to search for information on this university and found nothing in google books, and virtually nothing on google news. This article, [33], suggests that the University has no legal or educational standing in Switzerland. This page, once listed as a source for the article, states that the UN terminated a partnership with UMEF "due to failure to communicate progress." -Darouet (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and the reason would be that it does exist as an institution with a physical location, and is getting students shunted in its direction via places like [34]. There are hundreds of students in Afghanistan who have the impression that they have a degree from Swiss UMEF University via Dunya University of Afghanistan (DUA) and indeed that university lists itself as a subsidiary of the Swiss UMEF University group. I hope I've gotten the formatting right for this. Bizetshine (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Bizetshine: the link you've provided - [35] - returns a "page not found" notice and contains no information about UMEF. Also, it is important to explain why an article should or should not be written using Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, available here: WP:GNG. Those guidelines are clear that reliable sources must exist that describe the subject of the article, in some detail (not simply cursory mentions). -Darouet (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, link fixed, and I don't believe that's a cursory mention. News from within Afghanistan: <http://bakhtarnews.com.af/eng/tech/item/23270-swiss-umef-university-of-afghanistan-churns-out-first-batch-of-mba-graduates.html?tmpl=component&print=1>Bizetshine (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More from Kabul: <http://thekabultimes.gov.af/index.php/newsnational/12781-recent-claim-on-illegal-activity-of-swiss-umef-university-in-afghanistan-baseless-officials.html> Bizetshine (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those refs shows the existence of UMEF as an accredited Swiss University. This AFD is not about the Afghan offshoot. I have tidied up some of the refs and claims in the article. UMEF is indeed qualified under EduQua, but that is only as an adult continuing education facility. This appears to be an actual school of some sort, albeit unaccredited (not just an online degree mill) but we need some significant independent coverage of UMEF to show that it is notable. Meters (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that it's notable as the parent organization of the Kabul school and its notoriety because of that, and its role in handing out actual degrees to many people, even if the offshoot is in Afghanistan. The reason Dunya was established was because there was a fancy European university backing it. If Dunya is allowed (it's recognized by the Ministry of Higher Education there) it's rational to have information about the organization it's a part of. Not to mention informative to the students who find they've been burned.Bizetshine (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, "we need some significant independent coverage of UMEF to show that it is notable." If you think it is notable because of its involvement with the creation of some other accredited school then add the material to the article with reliable sources. There is no mention of this supposed connection to a school in Afghanistan in this article. The article, as it stands, simply does not show the notability of the school. Meters (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So: if I add that material you'll support keeping. A good tip and I will add it. Just noticed now that it's also Accreditation Service for International Colleges accredited, so I added that.Bizetshine (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say I would support keeping this article if you added sources. I will evaluate any new sources you add. If they are reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability I will reconsider. Meters (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Dunya. Based on the available information, it is s shell company with no actual existence as a university. If it has been a instituion of convenience for other colleges than Dunya, then it would be best made a separate article, but I see no evidence of that so far. It does seem to be essentiallya shell institution, but there is real existence. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC) .[reply]
      • We can redirect it for now, but Dunya University of Afghanistan (DUA) hardly even qualifies as a stub. The majority of the material in the article before I removed it was actually about UMEF. The only independent source for the existence of the school is in Persian so I can't verify it. Meters (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • They're separate institutions run by the same guy. The Swiss one is now accredited via ASIC, the Afghan one via IACBE, as noted in each article. The deal is that a guy purchases a Swiss diploma mill and on the strength of it gets permission to start a university in Afghanistan, where the names are used interchangeably. The formal title at the Ministry of Higher Education in Afghanistan is Dunya, but when you go to graduation ceremonies you get a diploma from both Dunya and UMEF, and Dunya (and the media) calls itself Dunya or UMEF as the mood strikes. It's Afghanistan and documentation isn't the best. The article wasn't about UMEF, it was about Dunya in Kabul because there is no UMEF. Bizetshine (talk) 20:15, 20 February 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, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoops, new comment here then, and I'll give a narrative just to say what's going on (and not as gospel or intent to say what should be in the articles, just to clarify what all this material is). Swiss UMEF University was once a small-time diploma mill unworthy of mention except to whatever the Better Business Bureau in Switzerland might be. A man from Afghanistan bought it, and then it started to bug the Afghan embassy to set up a university in Afghanistan. The background is in the Kabul Times article above. The effort succeeds, establishing Dunya University of Afghanistan (DUA) thus guaranteeing the Genevan UMEF a sort of notability (not necessarily Wikipedia notability): it's the parent organization of a legitimate higher education institution in Afghanistan. When students graduate, they get diplomas from Dunya and UMEF, as in their grad video on YouTube (note the presence of UMEF and Dunya microphones on the lectern: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct0f5iWnc_A>). The government in Afghanistan (not to mention the student body), however, is eventually made aware that Swiss UMEF University is in fact producing unrecognized paper instead of real degrees (though they do have real offices and probably still have their hostel). The Swiss institution is then forced to shop for accreditation, finding it via Accreditation Service for International Colleges just this month, which provides a much stronger case for Wikipedia notability, as for unaccountable reasons ASIC remains a recognized accrediting body in the UK. There's some relevant material on what ASIC has been up to on its Wikipedia entry. So: the notability of UMEF IMO is that it is the parent body of recognized educational operations, and is accredited on its own at the Swiss address by a recognized if sketchy body out of the UK. References for all of this have been given, but it tends to get erased by UMEF/Dunya partisans who would rather see an ad. Bizetshine (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment @Meters, Bizetshine, Kurykh, and DGG: I have not really evaluated sufficiently whether Dunya deserves its own article. In principle, if it meets WP:GNG, I do not object to mentioning UMEF there with a sentence or two. -Darouet (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no problem with a short mention of UMEF in Dunya, but this discussion is off topic for an AFD on UMEF. By the way, User:Mean as custard and I were the ones who removed the majority of the UMEF material from the Dunya article, and it is inappropriate to characterize either of us as partisans. An article about Dunya should not consist mainly of material about UMEF. Meters (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are more people who have had a hand in the article than the people here. I'm happy to see most of the UMEF material in the Dunya article go because the function was clearly to advertise. Bizetshine (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This sort of situation has arisen before. Swiss law seems to permit this sort of manipulation. (other countries also, but Switzerland sounds eminently respectable and so it's often chosen--here we've seen so many cases that, unlike the naive students, we're immediately suspicious) My personal view is that in these cases we owe an obligation to the public. We're an extremely well known international source of information that at least tries to be reliable, and the fact that an operation is in some way dishonest should be a reason for inclusion in cases of doubt, and for sufficiently detailed coverage to make the situation clear. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 16:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:03, 9 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. MBisanz talk 11:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Brooke Saward[edit]

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

    Minor Australian travel writer. No real evidence of notability. Calton | Talk 03:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment "Minor" may be relevant, but why is "Australian" relevant to the AfD nomination? Aoziwe (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Brooke Saward has been featured on over 15 different magazines. She currently has over a million followers and has published a book. http://www.worldofwanderlust.com/press/ - The sources used for this article are credible and therefore, it deserves to be here. Haivanessa (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm helping Haivanessa with this page and I think it is a great start. It will no doubt improve but I think the sources are reliable and reputable and indicative that this is a noteworthy person. -Reagle (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean all those self-references are reliable? Really.
    I've seen your class page. Aren't you -- or your TAs -- exercising any quality control? One of your student's pages has already been deleted as spam (Ferris Rafauli) and another misshaped draft (Draft:Analytical Thinking) wound up in article space for a day before you moved it back. With only a couple of exceptions, the articles are commercial listings, lightly dusted with self-references and passing mentions. And to answer Haivanessa's question, no, the mere act of publishing a book doesn't mean much, especially one that shows no indication of being notable. It's in 34 libraries, according to Worldcat; by contrast, a couple of my favorite not-best-selling travel books (Blood Washes Blood by Frank Viviano and The Silent Traveller in Paris by Yee Chiang) are in 457 and 297 libraries, respectively. Hell, a friend of mine wrote a dense academic tome on Caribbean literature, and despite its esoteric topic it's in 300 libraries. You need to do better, Mr. Reagle. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article seems be part of formal work activity for a course of study, User:Reagle/Online Communities 2017-1-SP, so while it might not be notable, I think we need to mentor and guide as much as possible before people "just !vote". Aoziwe (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to introduce you to the concept of the draft space. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if people think returning it to the Draft space for now is the best idea, please do so. -Reagle (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waiting I am holding off forming an opinion on this one for the time being. It is very obviously an active work-in-progress. Aoziwe (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Haivanessa: An initial suggestion if I may: Using WONDERLUST as references would appear to be contrary to policy. If I understand it correctly, this is the article's subject's own web site, so at best is a primary site and should not be used. Wikipedia relies on secondary references. Please see WP:RS. Aoziwe (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is something a professor teaching a class involving writing Wikipedia articles should be teaching. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aoziwe, thank you for your patience and helpful feedback. -Reagle (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify - In it's current incarnation, this is not suitable for mainspace, but a quick google news search turns up enough in-depth sourcing to show that the person is notable, such as this on Forbes, this from The Daily Mail, this from The Examiner, this from Nextshark, and another from The Daily Mail. And that's just on the first page of the search. My advice would be to take a look at WP:CIT on how to correctly format citations, as well, for example, this article is used, but the citation does not title the article correctly, nor give accreditation to its author, or give its date of publication. Also, the raw links (e.g. to Charlie's Dessert House) in the body of the article need to be removed, and using Saward's first name in after the initial introduction needs to be corrected. Onel5969 TT me 21:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:onel5969, thanks for the helpful suggestions! -Reagle (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned above, Brooke Saward is actually pretty notable, if you search her on Google she has been featured in many different credible publications. I agree the article needs a little editing (which I will do if you guys allow me), however, I do think the article does not need to be deleted. Haivanessa (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    She does appear to be barely notable, further coverage is available, but this was created as an advert. TNT. Delete and let someo ne neutral recreate. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    duffbeerforme, thank you for removing the "link spam." It is also best to Assume Good Faith when it comes to the intentions of editors and their contributions. For example, Haivanessa might be a newbie (which she is) rather than an non-neutral spammer. -Reagle (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 9 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. This has already been relisted thrice and I do not see a clear consensus. It is suggested to wait for a while before renominating it again. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 21:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Akwasi Frimpong[edit]

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

    Non-notable athlete. Has not competed in the highest level of any sport to make him notable. Trying to qualify for the Olympics is not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notability is not based on what a person did (at least not directly), but on coverage of said person. The buttload of biographical sources indicate that he meets WP:SPORTBASIC. Of course, not all those sources are equally reliable, but a whole biography in Salt Lake City's oldest daily newspaper surely says passes WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable in secondary sources, article is puff piece. Denarivs (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think the Deseret News source is enough to pass GNG. The article needs to be edited, but that does not prove he is other than notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a hard call for me. I want to keep the article. I want to keep an article on a black man who came to Utah and married a blonde, white woman there. Especially since the subject is a native of Ghana. However I just can't work out a way to justify keeping the article. The Deseret News article may just be at the level we would need to pass GNG, but GNG requires multiple articles, just one will not pass GNG. The UVU press release on Frimpong competing in the upcoming world skeleton competition is not enough. If Frimpong goes to the 2022 Olympics as a competitor, he will be notable. If people can identify a lot of quality, reliable, secondary sources that provide substantial coverage of Frimpong, than an article is justified. So far we have one, and that is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This [36] source shows that the goal to go to the Olympics in 2022 has some force behind it. Still it is also a press release, so not really usable as a source towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think there are enough sources to demonstrate basic notability. It is a tough call, but I think this person at least barely crosses the notability threshold. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. The article also appears to contain a lot of original research and unencyclopedic content. Laurdecl talk 01:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Competes at the 2017 Worlds, should be notable then. Kante4 (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:57, 9 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. MBisanz talk 11:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wilson Architects[edit]

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

    PROD was removed - was prodded as "Self-authored article, no citations to external websites." Mifter (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge to Alexander Brown Wilson. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge as above. Article has no external sources and until recently was more-or-less just a self-authored list of regional awards. 08:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Solid keep and expand. I suggest there is more than enough NEXISTS to support the article and expand it with IRSS. Some for example seem to be:
    There also specific mentions in further sources about their projects rather than the firm itself.
    Also importantly google: "Wilson Architects" site:www.couriermail.com.au gives some further strong IRSS. Aoziwe (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also many historical references for example amongst trove Aoziwe (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    many of the trove results are not about this firm but other architects with same name. Also the sites you post above are mainly architecture industry so not entirely third party. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but I think you will find that all of the AB and RM Wilson ones are the relevant ones. Yes above, some but not all. I do believe there is sufficient specific and overall NEXIST to keep this article. Aoziwe (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Keep: there were many citations independent of the topic in the article before large amounts of it was deleted and then PRODed. Judge it by the citations that were in the article (e.g. this version, which has masses of citations not closely associated with the firm) not just what is left. It is a well-known architectural firm which wins many awards. I would expect well-known architects to appear in architecture industry publications, especially when they win so many awards. It would be a worrying sign if their industry publications didn't mention them. Kerry (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    try this google search if you want a mainstream newspaper (not an architectural publication) Kerry (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am struggling to assume good faith when an article with over 40 citations was stripped down to just two citations both of which came from the firm's website and then proposed for deletion on the grounds of having no citations to external websites. Kerry (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment:I can assure I have no stake in the article however it is worth noting that in the last rev ([37]) prior to the cleanup the article reads very much like an advertisement or PR piece. The citations were all to misc awards and the article was primarily written by users who have minor or no edits outside the article. I nominated the article after its PROD was removed (it was PROD tagged by another editor) as I myself am not sure it is notable enough for its own article and it was almost completely written by individuals who in my estimation either have a serious COI or are directly tied to the company. I personally think it would be worth merging to the founders article but I will leave it to the closing admin to decide. That being said I am always happy to be proven wrong if you are able to improve the article directly. Mifter (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree entirely that the article was not a good one being mostly a long list of awards, but the question at AfD is not about the quality of the article but about notability of the topic. Removing all independent citations of awards in your revision also removed the evidence of notability. Although the contributors you mention are not known to me personally, I do know that there have been edit-a-thons about architecture held here in Australia and there is at least one Australian university that appears to do a class activity each year contributing to Wikipedia on Australian architecture topics, which might explain the contribution pattern. These tend to come up on my watchlist/notifications because I write about Queensland heritage architecture. Kerry (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that AfD is for notability and not quality (though I do not believe article quality and notability are mutually exclusive in all cases). As I mentioned above I personally am on the fence about this article's notability and as another editor PRODed it I viewed that as validating my concern enough that I believed a forum such as this would be appropriate for a larger discussion. It is great to hear about edit-a-thon's on this topic and while I don't know how much of a role that they did or did not play in this article it is certainly possible that they did (from what limited reading I've done on Queensland it sounds like a fascinating place) though with edit-a-thon's the new editors may not be overly familiar with our notability policies. Mifter Public (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed re newbies and notability. Kerry (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - a particularly good example of in depth reliable coverage is: Chris Herde, Family of architects have designed some of Brisbane’s landmarks. The Courier-Mail, July 24, 2014. I think the article meets GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provisional Strong Keep (How's that for specific?) When the search tool terms are refined 'Wilson architects Australia,' numerous reliable source refs appear. However, the article only uses 'in house' references, and was probably written by someone in house not familiar with Wikipedia concepts and formats. They ought to task someone in house to learn about Wikipedia and write the article. I have no objection to in house, if it's done right. The best article I've ever seen that looked as though it was written in house is Cael Sanderson, a prominent American wrestler and, now, coach. My guess is that someone told the Penn State publicity department to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia before writing or modifying the article. This article isn't promotional in tone, so if they continue that approach and add appropriate refs, it would be a more than decent article. Tapered (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! Just removed one peacock world from Cael Sanderson. No one's perfect. Tapered (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 02:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:56, 9 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. Striking the !votes of blocked users/sockpuppets leaves only delete !votes and delete-oriented comments. Kurykh (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Preston Fassel[edit]

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

    Based on cited references and a web search, subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Ringbang (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep- Prolific writer for Rue Morgue, has done most of their blogging for the past few years and had cover stories published, in addition to the novel and screenplay. Guidelines explicitly state that number of Google results does not correlate to notability. Rue Morgue Magazin Authors: Preston Fassel
    Per WP:AUTHOR-- "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Seems to describe subject well. Timmybiscool (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Timmybiscool. Has Fassel been the subject of a book, film, TV series, or other major work? What is the evidence that his work is significant or well-known? Remember that writing for a magazine isn't enough to establish notability; most magazine and newspaper writers do not quality. For the purposes of passing the GNG, what's needed here is direct, in-depth coverage of the author in reliable, indepedent sources—especially secondary sources; or, alternatively, evidence that his collective body of work has been demonstrably impactful. What we have is an interview from a blog with no editorial oversight; two local news reports that found the novel's publication newsworthy only because the author is from their town; and a short blurb about the novel on The Daily Grindhouse, which mostly copies-and-pastes from the book's description on Amazon.com. By themselves, these sources are not enough to establish notability. If you know of sources that do, it would be great if you could add them to the article. —Ringbang (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's is considered notable enough within the horror community that he's been invited to be a lecturer/guest at Texas Frightmare Weekend, one of the largest horror conventions in the United States and the largest in the Southern United States. This information has since been added to the article. Non-notable individuals do not tend to be asked to speak alongside the likes of Dario Argento or Frank Henenlotter (also guests/speakers at the event).68.116.145.47 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I saw this page, too. Remember that subjects do not inherit notability by association. For obvious reasons, having a workshop at a convention is not very convincing evidence of notability, even if the convention organisers also booked celebrities for their event. —Ringbang (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not talking about inheriting anything. This is an event that spends considerable time and money to bring the best and most noteworthy the horror world has to offer. Not sure what you mean by "for obvious reasons" unless you have a particular bias against conventions, but TFW doesn't just pull people off the street or fan blogs to appear at their shows.Timmybiscool (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The inheritance in this case is by association with Rue Morgue, Texas Frightmare Weekend, or the people on its event roster. And that's really what's at the heart of what I meant by "obvious reasons": Not everyone who is on a fan convention's schedule is notable, just as not every novelist and magazine writer is notable. If we accept that "Texas Frightmare Weekend only hosts the best, they host Fassel, therefore Fassel is notable", then the event becomes a sort of notability-generating machine. There are elite titles, offices, honours, etc. that impart notability, but this isn't one of them.
    Anyway, the best case you can make for the article is by applying the highest quality references you can find. If he's notable, then you should be able to find reliable sources, independent of Fassel, that talk about him directly and in depth. —Ringbang (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep As notable to Rue Morgue as Michael Gingold is to Fangoria68.116.145.47 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Plus two of the cited sources are newspaper articles, so not sure how swift your search parameters are if they don't turn up...68.116.145.47 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are, however, local coverage stories about "a local author," his book does not appear to have received coverage outside the local paper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In print for 20 years, produced a movie, sponsor multiple conventions, print books, largest horror publication in Canada... How are they NOT notable?Timmybiscool (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we take a step back? You've worked on the article, and you care about it. I've been there; we're all on the same side. This question is not an attack. E.M.Gregory is asking because Rue Morgue (magazine), like the Preston Fassel article, is not well-supported by references. —Ringbang (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. To argue that Fassel is notable because he writes for Rue Morgue, it is necessary to show editors unfamiliar with this magazine that Rue Morgue. is notable. Tmproving it according to WP:GACR standards is the best way to do this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm supposing that E.M. Gregory isn't a horror fan, which I respect, but saying that a magazine with Rue Morgue's history and reach "may not be notable" is somewhat akin to asking whether "Ring Magazine" is notable coming from an editor who isn't a boxing fan or doesn't have a lot of knowledge of that particular sport. Rue Morgue's article already talks about the magazine's history, film productions, festival sponsorship, etc. It sort of feels like I'm being asked to improve another article that to me doesn't seem like it needs improving to standards I'm not even certain of to just to try and protect this one from individuals without an interest in the area.Timmybiscool (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to do anything with Rue Morgue (magazine); editing and sourcing that article doesn't affect this AfD, and it's just a complicating distraction. Getting back to Fassel: For this AfD, the most important guideline to read and internalise is WP:GNG. We just don't have significant coverage of the subject. —Ringbang (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete I cannot see any basis on which he passes WP:JOURNALIST. Rue Morgue is a niche publication, but the "keep" arguments seem to be based on the assertion that a "prolific writer" for a magazine, any magazine, is necessarily notable. This is NOT THE CASE. We do not have articles for every "prolific writer" working even for major publications like The Guardian or Sports Illustrated. Articles on journalists need to establish notability , which is usually done by showing that WP:RS secondary source publications have published assessments of their work, and articles about stuff like where their first job was, and when they were hired by Fangoria or Rue Morgue. There is no use repeating that Rue Morgue is well-known. What we need to see in order to establish notability is that his articles are republished in books like Best Magazine ARticles, 2016, discussed in scholarly journal article or books about horror fiction, and taht there are articles in WP:RS publications that offer substantive discussion of him and/or his work. User:Timmybiscool, we're not picking on you in particular, or on this genre; this is just the way Wikipedia works.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and fix, Rondo nominaton and speaking engagement at a notable event indicate notability but article needs workRudyLucius (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that User:RudyLucius had not edited since May 2006 until this moment, when he rejoined us to rapidly comment on 9 AFD discussions, then iVote to keep this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the Rondo Award is not bluelinked, but, rather, was written into the lede to look like a bluelinked Award, when it is actually mentioned in the article on Rondo Hatton, where it is not supported by any secondary sources. I searched. It does not google well [38], and the gNews hits [39] are not impressive. It looks look like it is a real, but minor, honor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to the contributions that E.M.Gregory has made to Wikipedia, it seems that he's letting his lack of familiarity with the subject matter cloud his judgment. While the Rue Morgue and Rondo Hatton articles admittedly need work, there's a difference between needs improvement and "not notable." Over the course of this AFD Debate he's called the largest horror publication in the world "niche" and questioned its' notability and called the Rondo Hatton Award, which is one of the highest awards a non-fiction horror writer can receive, "minor." (A look at the link he provided to Google News links even contains an Entertainment Weekly article that acknowledges the Rondo as the Oscars of the horror world. See here). I respect his reservations, but at the same time it would appear as though his own non-interest in the subject area is clouding hisperception of its' notability.Timmybiscool (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this is going to sound strange but I'm a bit suspicious of the previous user and not sure his vote should be trusted. It's his very first post on Wiki ever and he's made no other edits. I know that another Wiki user has very verbally voiced his displeasure with some additions I've made to another article here on Wikipedia, and due to my reporting him he was temporarily banned from editing a certain page. I wouldn't put it past this individual to attempt to discredit me here by engaging in suspicious behavior to make it look as though I'm sockpuppeting. If the guy is legit and for whatever reason wanted to make this his first post, cool, whatever, but, I don't want this to come back on me and the article because of someone else's shady behavior.Timmybiscool (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a few days having passed and it being his only contribution, I'm calling shenanigans on Surrogale. I know this is my article, but I want it to succeed on its' own merits, and I'm very much thinking this is an attempt by a user upset with my edits to another article attempting to undermine the credibility of this one.Timmybiscool (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, my article in that I created it-- not that I am the subject, as the same above user has alleged.Timmybiscool (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Checkuser note: RudyLucius is a  Confirmed sock of Timmybiscool. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timmybiscool.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 12 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 keep. AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 05:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    kaiga[edit]

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

      Sawongam (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • SPEEDY KEEP a lack of references is NOT a valid reason for deletion, if sections need expanding then expand them! Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy keep - per WP:GEOLAND. DrStrauss talk 18:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, I've added the official Census ref, so this subject very plainly meets the requirements of WP:GEOLAND as noted above. It should be noted that there at least one other village in India that shares this name according to Census search results, so disambiguation of the title may be warranted. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:08, 10 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) 02:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Domou Amro[edit]

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

      Non-notable badminton player. Has not competed in notable tournaments. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 13 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) 02:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Yayoi Yanagida[edit]

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

      A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Virtually no encyclopedic content. The ja.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability.

      Significant RS coverage not found. The award listed in not significant and well-known, and, generally, the 'mature performer' categories do not qualify under WP:PORNBIO. The article is part of a recent batch created by Special:Contributions/Gstree, many of which have already been deleted. See for example:

      K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Davey Latter[edit]

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

      Deprodded without rationale. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 TT me 02:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 13 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) J947 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Sara Juli[edit]

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

      Does not meet notability criteria. Tumblehome (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep under WP:GNG, supported by the following sources:
      Mainstream sources:
      • Groves, Nancy (12 November 2010). "Money talks: Artist Sara Juli discusses cold, hard cash in new show". The Independent. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
      • "A Truly Generous Performance". The New York Times. 12 February 2006. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
      • Hoffman, Barbara (13 February 2006). "SHE'S IN THE MONEY – PERFORMANCE ARTIST HOPES CASH REGISTERS WITH AUDIENCE". New York Post. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
      • "Take It, It's For You". The Story. 22 August 2013. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
      Sources from important publications in the American modern dance scene:
      Local/regional sources:
      FourViolas (talk) 15:19, 11 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. per recent changes to WP:SOFTDELETE. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 19:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Tom John Light[edit]

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

      Article fails to cite any reliable sources, is an orphan, does not to meet the requirements for BLPs (eg. overstates achievements that most successful young entrepreneurs also accomplish, appears overly promotional, etc.) and seems to be entail COI. Homo Ex Machina (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:07, 9 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 nominator withdrew his nomination Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Disposable[edit]

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

      wp:NOTADICTIONARY KDS4444 (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Why delete this article? It has been around for about ten years and has been recently improved. Of course more improvement and citation is needed. Keep the article.Pkgx (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and rename to disposable product (which redirects to the article). Clearly a notable topic, with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Google Scholar and Google Books searches provide specific examples, among other searches. Simply removing the minor amount of dicdef content will suffice, rather than blanket deletion. North America1000 08:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Red X I withdraw my nomination KDS4444 (talk) 09:47, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Integral Biomathics[edit]

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

      All the references for this seem to be a core group of those involved citeing each other. There seems to be no general recognition of it as a scientific approach. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Quote: "The operative framework of Integral Biomathics is defined as a multi-perspective approach to knowledge production..." Trouble is, that definition has already been used for "Multidimensional bioinformatics", "Energy synchrodynamics", "Neuroanalytical integration theory", and many more I haven't made up yet. The long list of references is almost entirely the work of a single first author. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. The initial publication (arXiv:cs/0703002) appears to be pure content-free buzzword salad, and its approving citations of Copeland, Rössler, and Siegelmann are also warning signs. But of course, all that doesn't prevent it from being actually notable, and by my usual standards for academic concepts (multiple independent groups producing peer-reviewed publications) it passes. Nevertheless, there are two bigger issues guiding me to the conclusion that it should be deleted. First, as DGG says, it appears to be a citation circle or in Wikipedia terms, a walled garden, but one that is mostly out in academia rather than on Wikipedia itself. As such it is essentially on the fringe and needs non-fringe sources to satisfy our demand for a neutral point of view. But those sources don't exist. Second, and more critically, Wikipedia content needs to be verifiable, and it can't be verifiable if it is deliberately incomprehensible. The only content we have here is an echo of the same buzzword salad of its sources. If we would try to make this readable by rewriting it into words of simple and plain meaning, it would all vanish in a mist. Wikipedia articles need to actually be about something, not merely to have the semblance of being about something. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete This is amazingly content-free - that article reads as if it had been constructed from buzzwords as part of a Sokal-type sting. What with the overwhelming reliance on one primary author's publications, I don't think the notability is there either.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete in view of above comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
      • Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 16 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) J947 18:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      100 Years (film)[edit]

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

      WP:NOTNEWS. This "film" feels like it is a publicity stunt to advertise a brewery, and thus, all the media coverage of it can be considered routine, and a parroting of marketing messages. I am not sure if this future film has lasting notability. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep, and of course this page will be kept. Your reasoning is guesswork, and the page has enough solid sources. This does give us a chance to discuss the film, and maybe give the opposing guesswork. Robert Rodriguez and John Malkovich are professionals, proud professionals. They were approached to do this interesting film, and probably were thrown a whole lot of money to do it. Rodriguez is almost unique among major filmmakers in that he actually has made one-man films and has everything he needs to film, edit, score, and do the other in-studio tasks right in his home. He has the tools he needs to do this project and knows how to use them. The overall plot core, 100 years, probably emerged with an interesting premise and amazing acting and dialogue from this two-man creative team. Hell, you can turn the camera on Malkovich and let him ad-lib and spontaneously interact with his environment for two hours and come out of that maelstrom with 20 minutes of useable footage. These guys are good at what they do, and they are not going to agree to punk their ancestors, the press, 1,000 other invited guests and their legacy for the laughs. Instead they have probably come up with an interesting, well-made, well-edited, and well-written, acted and scored film which will be highly reviewed in 2115. This article will probably be featured on Wikpedia that day, and the readers skinscanning and eyeballing (literally) the holographic surround-life 5D brainwikilinked page may ponder what wonderful films Rodriguez and Malkovich could have made with the tech of today. Randy Kryn 02:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, let's see. On the plus side, the entity meets WP:GNG, receiving much-more-than-passing-mention description in several highly notable publications such as Variety and People. Generally, meeting WP:GNG is a strong indicator for keeping the article.
      On the other hand... first of all, the entity does not appear to exist. There's no evidence that it does exist (no on has seen it, and AFAIK there are no reports from the production which indicates that production ever occurred. Furthermore, it would be unlikely for any commercial organization to put sufficient resources to make a film into something which nobody alive will live to to benefit from -- the stunt works just as well whether or not the film exists. Given that, the burden of proof would have to be on anyone contending that the entity exists.
      "Not existing" is not deal-killer for an article (lots of things that don't exist are notable), but it might be for a film article. WP:NFF says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". None of the sources indicated that principal photography was ever undertaken. NFF also say "[F]ilms that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Note that is says "unless the production itself is notable" -- something reported about the production itself, such as a scandalous romantic liason among the stars, that sort of thing. Nothing about a notable publicity campaign for the film being a factor.
      So, if we follow our usual approach to films, since there is no film (probably) we can't call it "100 Years (film)" -- it must at the least be moved to "100 Years (publicity campaign)" or something like that. Since it's a publicity stunt / advertising campaign, it's a lot more ephemeral than an actual film, so a good argument for deleting it on those grounds even though it meets WP:GNG could be made, I think. Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Cool. Meeting WP:GNG usually negates the deletion request, as that alone 'saves' the page (depending on the meaning of 'presumed' assumed). As for a proposed title change or deletion for not existing, you make a good point in that absolute proof of an existing film has not been sourced (as far as I know, haven't read the sources). Is the word of the two principals enough? Probably. They did release three trailers, although none show any scenes from the film. They did at least that much work. If Rodriguez made the film himself, directed, edited, co-wrote, did the music, sound, lighting, etc., which seems likely, all we need is his word. If that is in the sources, then the present name seems fine. Randy Kryn 03:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      In context, WP:NFF explains its reasoning: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." The reliable sources uniformly say that Malkovich and Rodriguez made (past tense) the movie. Maybe Herostratus is right and Variety, People and Entertainment Weekly are wrong. I'll take the reliable sources, personally. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, but sometimes sources have be looked at a little bit. WP:RS does not encourage us to say 1) Variety is generally reliable publication and 2) Variety used the verb "made" in their article, and so 3) we can and indeed should tell the reader that film was was made, even if it probably wasn't. There is no source of which it can be said "if it says so there, we can stop thinking: it's true, period". If the film was made, who was the cinematographer? Who was key grip? Who was film editor? Who who did casting? And so forth. You can't answer these questions because (I suspect) there is no answer. We shouldn't tell readers that something is true when it very probably is not, and we should't allow our own procedures to lead us to do that.
      Reading the sources, it sure looks to me, in context, that these publications are just reporting what Malkovich and Rodriguez are telling them.
      Variety says "have made a movie" without further elucidation, but then flat-out admit they are using the Gawker blog io9 as a prime source ("The film, aptly titled “100 Years,” is set in the present but won’t be seen until Nov. 18, 2115, according to io9" [emphasis added]). The io9 piece begins "Think the secrecy around the biggest Hollywood blockbusters is crazy? They don’t come close to what John Malkovich and Robert Rodriguez are doing." Doesn't that make you a wee bit suspicious? Sounds a little bit like the secret plan to defeat ISIS or whatever. It could be secret because, after spending millions of dollars making it, the Rémy Martin corporation chose to sink that cost for 100 years for no benefit (they get the same buzz whether the film exists or not), but Occam's razor leads me to be believe that it's secret because it doesn't exist.
      People says "Malkovich and Rodriguez have finished said film". I don't believe them. People is generally reliable for celebrity gossip type news, but I don't trust them on this. The New Yorker would have had someone ask where and when the film was made and call up hotels in that town to independently verify that the production company had actually rented a bunch of rooms for that period -- or something, whatever they do (they're very rigorous). Did People do this sort of fact-checking? I don't trust People to that level. They say "On Wednesday, the Oscar-nominated actor and Sin City director announced they had teamed up with Louis XIII Cognac to create a film..." "Announced", indeed.
      Entertainment Weekly -- again, I guess they're maybe reliable (dunno) but they're sure not Der Spiegel -- says "made a film", but again I get the vibe that they're just passing on what Malkovich and Rodriguez are telling them. Here indeed we have "Per a press release, 'to ensure that 100 Years remains secure until its official premiere,' the project is being 'held in a special safe...". Oh, OK, a press release. Well if it's in a press release it must be true. Phht. Herostratus (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Nice research. Yet, because Rodriguez has the in-home resources and has proven that he is technologically savvy enough to use them and make a complete film single-handidly, and Malkovich wrote the film and claims he completed his performance, their word will have to do. The sources trust them, neither has publicly complained that anyone is taking their assertions out-of-context, and someone even created a poster and trailers. Since the intent was to make the film and then tuck it away for 100 years we can't source anyone else who has seen the film. Pure guesswork on my part, but I don't think these two professionals would participate in a scam, so if they say the film is in the bulletproof-glass protected safe, and that carried enough weight to convince the sources, the sources seem to be enough to back-up this article's title and its claim to notability. Wikipedia has many other articles on upcoming films, and no policy exists which includes a release-date time limit. Anyway, Rodriguez's descendants will be in the audience along with 1,000 others, so his and Malkovich's reputation will be on the line in 2115. The release will probably encourage Rodriguez and Malkovich film and body-of-work retrospectives, and they both know that. Likely the only thing that will be a scam that day will be the price of popcorn. Randy Kryn 13:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I honestly have trouble following what you're on about, but it's not a "scam" if there's no film. It's a perfectly respectable publicity stunt, and I'm sure they were well paid paid for it -- they probably think it an interesting and amusing thing to do, and fine. Actors participate in advertising campaigns all the time. (It will be a scam 100 years in the future if people really are sold expensive tickets to see what they are told will be interesting full-length film and are instead shown a blank screen. I don't consider that likely.)
      Again, "no film" does not necessarily mean "no article". We do have articles on notable advertising campaigns and publicity stunts. But since these tend to be ephemeral the bar for keeping them should maybe be higher than for actual films (which have actual lasting existence), higher than than "meets GNG in a couple passing magazine articles of the day" maybe, so... Herostratus (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - 3.5 independent reliable sources say the film was made. The film passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about 100 Years (film and publicity stunt). Or is there a more civil way to say 'publicity stunt'(see below) that would cover all points of view accurately and adequately. If you all agree maybe we can end this discussion, change the title, and see if anyone objects. If so, it can go to an RM for a wider discussion. Maybe this makes sense, and covers all bases. Or it doesn't, and we continue on this interesting page. Randy Kryn 19:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe 100 Years (film and publicity event) would be a better descriptive title. I checked the John Malkovich filmography and there's a character listed for his role in the film: Hero. It's not sourced, so either it's fake Wikipedia or it resides as a fact somewhere. If true, announcing his character's name or on-screen role gives further proof of the film existing. Randy Kryn 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The IMDb page for the film lists the roles as "Hero Girl", "Hero" and "Bad Guy". (I'd be interested in what 2115 audiences make of the chauvinism, but that's off topic.) - SummerPhDv2.0 19:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep – Existing sources are enough, but there are plenty more out there, like The Washington Post, NME, Vanity Fair, etc. It's discussed as a "film", and its viability as such is not dependent on its viewability: a lost film is still a film (and we certainly haven't ever required information on key grips or film editors to verify). If all the disparate sources call it a film, and none call it a mere "publicity stunt", then we can't be the ones to make that call. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Well but the Washington Post says "Does the movie even exist? Malkovich started opening up about the 'terrific, emotionally charged' film to People back in November, so maybe it does." Okey-doke, maybe it does -- who knows? NME says "According to a press release (and reported by Entertainment Weekly)..." so all this is just a circle jerk. It's fun, it's fine. They're having fun with it, Malkovich is having fun, it's good fun. Remy Martin is getting some good publicity, and fine. There's nothing evil going on here.
      But there's no film (probably). Since there's no film (probably) we shouldn't tell our readers that there is. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Summary and clarification: You feel the movie does not exist. Reliable sources say it does. You say Wikipedia is saying it exists? No, we are not. Much as Wikipedia says that reliable sources say that HIV causes AIDS, Wikipedia says that reliable sources say this movie was made and locked in a safe.
      You feel it does not exist because, eh, why bother? And there's no evidence of location shooting, no known key grip, no receipts for gaffer's tape, etc. In addition to the usual "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I'd like to point out that I made a movie at my nephew's Boy Scout event a few months back and locked it in a vault/cloud. No evidence of a location shoot, key grip or gaffer needed. (It would probably be easier for me to make that up than actually do it. Does Occam's Razor suggest that movie doesn't exist?)
      From the website, we can see that there was some production work (with green screens, etc.) done for the trailers. Wit would have been a trivial matter for them to have shot an extra 30 seconds of the cast apologizing for the way we were about to leave the world, then let the camera roll while they settle in for a few rounds of drinks and drunken conversation. Save that footage to a memory card, toss it in the safe and Bob's your uncle.
      Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources have to say about notable subjects. Jerry Lewis allegedly made a comedy about the Holocaust and has spent the years since keeping it from surfacing. Independent reliable sources have covered it and a film by Lewis is assumed to be notable, so it has an article. The names attached to this film say it is likely notable as well and there is sufficient sourced material to write a short but reasonably detailed article. It sure sounds to me like your father has a brother named "Robert". - SummerPhDv2.0 19:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      "Reliable sources say it does"... I can't agree. No source has made a positive statement of belief in the existence of the film. We don't just say "X said Y, X is a reliable source, so we can say Y". It's harder than than that -- there's no source which gets a free pass like that. My reading of the sources indicated that they are just credulously passing on what they're being told in a rather offhand way. Doing a kind of "internal forensics" on the source material, there's no shred of evidence of any rigorous digging into the matter, or of actually much caring.
      The Washington Post, which is a better source than most or all of the others here (which tend more to be gee-whiz gossip outlets), said "Does the movie even exist? ...maybe it does." which is hardly a ringing endorsement and is probably a better way characterize the situation.
      FWIW the Boy Scout event movie you describe also does not exist for Wikipedia purposes. An attempt to defend an article My Nephew's Boy Scout Event (film) would fail on notability grounds, but as a though experiment assume it was given a WP:IAR pass on that for some reason. I assume it would then fail on proof-of-existence grounds, if nobody was able to come up with any evidence that it existed.
      But "let the camera roll while they settle in for a few rounds of drinks and drunken conversation" or something like that, that's a good point. So I withdraw the Occam's-razor argument, and confess that logic would be consistent with the existence of a film-length amount of footage which could be called a "film". Herostratus (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep As per above discussion, appears to meet WP:GNG. Need to heavily reduce advertising tone of article, as part of its intent is clearly promotional. Ies (talk) 19:09, 13 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) 02:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      List of PaRappa the Rapper characters[edit]

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

      The characters of this series are adequately covered within the plot sections of their respective articles. The sources (see video game reliable sources custom Google search) do not cover the characters as independently notable from the games, and everything that needs to be said about the characters fits within the scope of these existing articles. The article has been redirected several times over the last year but is reinstated without any attempt to find secondary sources for its contents. The topic lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) and is not needed as a redirect to the main game. czar 01:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 01:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Against: The whole point of character articles in the first place is to avoid redundancy in having to introduce the characters in every single piece of media (this series in particular covering three video games and two anime series). At the very least, it's more neccessary than individual articles for each of the soundtracks. Wonchop (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Right now, it's almost entirely in-universe fictional content, sourced to the instruction manuals of the games. You're right in the fact that it shouldn't be in the parent articles, but wrong in thinking there's a defense in there for keeping it in a stand-alone article. I don't have a stance yet since I haven't researched it yet, but I already know that if it's kept, it won't be due to rationales like this... Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete'. Lacks proper independent coverage by reliable sources. Gameguide material. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Actually, contrary to the nominator's statement, sourcing for the article has significantly improved since the article was first redirected. However, my impression was always that the PaRappa cast are not notable outside of the individual games, and I see nothing here to really indicate otherwise.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per my comments below. Nothing indicates the characters specifically are notable. If someone worked really hard and really dug for sources, I wonder if maybe it could be possible to write an article about Parappa himself - he's a bit more of an iconic "90's PlayStation" character who has appeared in a number of games. But not these other 50-odd rando background characters. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete unless someone finds some good sources about the characters (I find this unlikely, but would be glad to be proven wrong). There's just nothing that indicates notability, let alone independent notability.--IDVtalk 08:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above comments. I am intrigued by the suggestion to write an article about Parappa himself as that would be interesting to see, but I agree with the above comments about this list's deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 16 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. A clear consensus for the article to be retained has been established here, and consensus is that the topic meets notability standards. North America1000 10:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Astroneer[edit]

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

      This seems to be an indie game of low notability. The current sources used don't seem to be high-tier gaming websites. Even looking at the previous nomination, what sources are actually that notable. I don't think every single, low-impact indie game like this one should have a wikipedia page. Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Speedy Keep Per close of the last AFD. There's so many sources for this that it's hard to believe WP:BEFORE was followed. All reliables sources, all in just the first page of searching: [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. An additional five reliable sources sources I didn't link are already in a refideas template on the talk page. -- ferret (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Dude it is an indie game. Just because it was reviewed by highly specialized magazines, does not it make it notable. I have a hard time finding any sort of awards or sale numbers. Just because a few people like and play the game, it doesn't mean it is wort a wikipedia page. I understand having all the games from back in the day, but these days, so many indie developers publish stuff that it is impossible to have an article for each. If this has any staying power I would understand having one but as of now nothing strikes me as passing GNG. It has been 3 months since the talk page mentions some sort of work in progress. But other than gameplay this had nothing mentioned in it. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      AFD is not cleanup. Besides the fact that video game sources are certainly acceptable for establishing notability, here are some more sources that are not video game specialized, some from the last month: [49][50][51][52][53] -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Keep - This is an extremely popular game in the community that I'm surprised AfD was opened (for a second time). See ferret above. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Luke, just as information, your !vote here is essentially WP:ILIKEIT. AFD discussions need to be based on policies such as WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ferret: - Alright. I'd also like to point out what you said above, and how it passed a previous AfD less than six months ago. There is also a thriving community, including a subreddit with 17k subscribers. The article has over a dozen reliable sources as stated by Czar in the previous AfD, which is more than enough to prove notability. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nergaal, did you click through to the talk page before nominating? Plenty of sources as well as a previous discussion listed there. I recommend withdrawing this one czar 02:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Dude, look here: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/astroneer. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note, the game isn't released yet and is still early access. Reviews typically wait for release. -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      So we are ok with early-access indie games now? How low is the actual threshold for games these days? How about wait until the game's actual release to see if there is any sort of blip on the radar? Because the game has been in development for at least 2 years now. Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      If the sources support it, yes—early access or not. – Rhain ☔ 04:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep: Notability been established by sources above. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per the sources offered by ferret. -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep – plenty of sources exist that help this pass WP:GNG without any difficulty. As far as I'm aware, there has never been any consensus about excluding a game from having an article based on where it was in the development process. As long enough coverage exists, we keep it. —Torchiest talkedits 21:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep For a game that it in the early access stage, it has gotten significant attention even before reviews or sales trickle in. This is completely reasonable to keep. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per the above keep votes. A game not yet released can definitely have an article if it meets WP:GNG. (Even if it takes awhile...) ZettaComposer (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - pretty easily passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:35, 16 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) 02:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Apsara (film)[edit]

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

      Could not find sources for passing WP:NFILM. Trying an individual nomination instead to see whether it gives a better result than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisa Kyon Hota Hai?, which was a multi-page nomination. Per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, merely stating that sources exist without proof is not an argument to keep. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep per WP:NFILM. This user seems to be making a habit of nominating clearly-notable articles that wind up being basically always being kept as snow keeps. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Currently the article is unsourced with an EL to Imdb. Searching found nothing helpful. No elements of WP:NFILM met. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete- extremely poorly sourced and no real indication of notability. Without more extensive sourcing, this article is not much use and there is no indication that there's anything out there. Reyk YO! 20:19, 15 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Terry Matlen[edit]

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

      Makes unverifiable claims about the subject's notability and regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.244.1 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from article talk page. I remain neutral on the nomination itself at this time, but I will note that the article appears to have started as an autobiography. --Finngall talk 02:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete total lack of independent sources needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      L Sharp[edit]

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

      Non-notable LISP clone for .NET. Google searches for "L#", "L Sharp" and "L# .NET" fail to show independent coverage in reliable sources within the first few pages. GSMR (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 14:59, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Sean Basilio[edit]

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

      Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 4 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, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created by Dolovis in open and knowing defiance of consensus concerning applicable notability guidelines, and for which he received a community ban from new article creation. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject -- a minor league journeyman with an ephemeral career and no honors that meet any notability criteria -- meets the GNG. Ravenswing 08:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - falls well short of NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - searches returned nothing to show they pass WP:GNG, and as already pointed out, does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 TT me 17:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:15, 16 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Melker Sundén[edit]

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

      The article falls rather short of WP:BIO standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Would love to be able to source and expand this, but scriptwriters and producers are very difficult to source to WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and the HD, SKD, and Sydsvenskan as well as the little else I have found, is not enough. — Sam Sailor 03:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - per sources found. that no one bothers to expand the article with the found sources are irrelevant. and the article should be kept. also per WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:17, 9 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) J947 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Patricia Traxler[edit]

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

      Nothing substantial could be found about the subject. She fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      As the original author of this article, can someone please explain to me why it is in the Consideration for Deletion status. This person and all content is fully legitimate. In reviewing the deletion guidelines, perhaps I need more documentation... I will do additional research and try to wire more.... any additional insight is appreciated... Thanks-- GG (limestone9) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limestone9 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Limestone9: In order to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, two guidelines that I urge you to read carefully, we need to have sources that are not only reliable WP:RS, but that are secondary - see the section in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources in the use of secondary sources to establish notability. Stuff like published reviews of her work and profiles of her in publications other than her local newspaper. Read the guidelines I linked to and WP articles on other contemporary poets and you'll get the idea. Note that you can ask to have this article moved to your userpage, where you can keep it while you search for such sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I see references to works published by university presses, a fellowship to a Harvard-Radcliffe institute, recognition via a then-Poet Laureate of the U.S., all of which tick off boxes under WP:CREATIVE. I believe this adds up to "...has won significant critical attention...". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      User:TomAverill Please keep this page. As a Professor of English at Washburn University, as a Kansas writer myself, as a web designer who will link to this page as soon as it's up (see Map of Kansas Literature), I feel this is a great resource. I know the subject, and recognize everything on the page as valid and valuable. —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

      • Keep Please see the sources and reviews I added to the article. She's covered over time as a person in the news and her work has been reviewed in literary and library journals. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep User:R Robinson I came across this page while doing research for a project focused on contemporary Kansas writers. In following several of the provided references, I found all accurately supportive to Traxler’s work and to Wikipedia guidelines. In comparison to many of the other writer’s that I reviewed in Wikipedia, Traxler’s page is more thoroughly developed, including with legitimate cites and references to her many notable publications, awards she has received and Universities she has been associated with. the content and references also clearly demonstrate that she has received accolades from distinguished writers, including a former US Poet Laureate and Kansas Poet Laureate. I believe Traxler’s page easily meets WP:Author, WP:Creative and other Wiki criteria. Please keep. R Robinson —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep User:limestone9 As the initial author of this article, I am hoping it has now been further developed (and favorably discussed) to the point that it more clearly and successfully meets Wiki criteria so as the deletion tag might be removed. Including Patricia Traxler along with the other notable Kansas and U.S. current-day women writers in Wikipedia, hopefully can be seen as a solid addition. limestone9 (talk) 13, March 2017 (UTC)
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      MobiKwik[edit]

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

      Clear advertising, not only because we've established these publications largely, knowingly and otherwise obviously republish company advertising, but because there's consistency in all of them: For example: 1 is their own website -- 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 is a trade publication -- *3 is a trade publication, focusing with their life story -- 7, 11 and 12 is a local newspaper, but is an announcement, so is 8 -- 9 is a known PR republisher, only announcing the company's own finance plans -- 13 is a local PR award. Now, for the later added sources, they are: 1 is a finance announcement, 2 is also similar, but worse, because it's a clearly labeled "Company plans and their own words about it", same with 5 whereas 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 all follow. None of it satisfies our simplest policies, WP:NOT and the closely followed WP:CORPDEPTH, because the standards state: [Unacceptable sources are] brief announcements, simple statements, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, passing mentions, press releases, any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, any material by them, other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by or other. Our policies clearly state there's no negotiating in advertising since it has no place here, wherever it was republished. A simple searchhere clearly shows the criteria fitting, since all of them are either clearly labeled announcements or thinly hidden signs of it. The history also shows clear signs of likely employees or hired help, because they all share in the focused consistency, so policy WP:PAID applies. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete It is hard to imagine circumstances under which any ten person company has achieved notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This one certainly hasn't. - Brianhe (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep - This is a difficult borderline case, and I agree with some of the nomination's concerns about the article and the quality of its sources. Most of the sources present a biased picture with an overwhelming focus on perceived accomplishments and growth (unfortunately that style is all too common in articles about startups and "entrepeneurs"). But several of them (especially in "Further reading") also include additional commentary from the authors themselves and factual information. The allegation that all added entries in "Further reading" are press releases, advertising or republished information, has no clear evidence to back it up. Also, neither the size of a company (it has more than 10 employees by the way - the source is misrepresented and only covers the "core team"), nor previous COI edits (most of them have been cleaned up anyway) are valid reasons for article deletion. Lastly, critical coverage in Mint shows some public interest: this is clearly not your average backyard startup. GermanJoe (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - I cleaned up the article, removed the advertising, and added more sources, including recent news that's getting coverage. This one easily passed Afd just a few months ago - what changed? Timtempleton (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably Delete After the clean up,the status of the company seems clearer: not yet notable. The evidence for this is that the references are still almost entirely notices about raising funds, or obtaining permits. The best source is the April 2015 Forbes article, which says specifically it is not yet significant. Of course, that was 2 years ago and it might have become s=more substantial, but there's no equal quality source to that effect, and the company is still trying to raise small amounts of money. This raises the question: if there are RSs that say a company is not notable in its sphere of influence, does that make it notable by WP standards. A literal reading of the GNG would imply that it does; I consider that a paradox which has to be resolved by reading sources, not just counting them. But this is WP, and lack of logic is sometimes no barrier to consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Third most popular mobile wallet in India.[58] 50 million users according to other source in article. We'd be hard pressed to find a company with 50 million users in the US that isn't on Wikipedia already. Timtempleton (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment and analysis - Every single there is either a paid press or a clear republished business announcement, not only because of the mirrored consistency but take such blatant quotes as "The company's journey and its path ahead and what it says" that violates WP:GANG because it says we need independent coverage not based from primary sources. All others are clear in their influences such as "The company's finances and actions", "MobiKeio announced it is....And what the spokesman said", "The company's finances transactions", "MobiKwik wants to....and its words about it"; the policy that overtakes GNG is WP:What Wikipedia is not because of the clearly stated label "Users must not advertise or promote" and there are 2 sections about it, and fittingly for such an advertised "business profile" as "The company's path and ahead" and especially when the last link actually states the article is part of their PR section complete with the words "a starting company" thus not satisfying GNG. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete -- the page survived a prior AfD but is not better for it; the content is still company claims and aspirations, partnerships, product launches, and minor industry awards. WP:TOOSOON -- no encyclopedic relevance just yet. This content might just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep After a review of sources, I can find at least two that appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability and a number of others that are on the margins. For example, the second Mint article and the ZDNet article posted by North America above. -- HighKing++ 14:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Every single of the sources are either the company's employees talking about themselves or routine coverage. Some of the sources are also not exactly reliable sources.
      • the ZDNet article is a contributor blog.
      • The coverage in Economic Times/Times of India [59], [60], [61] are all in the small biz section which is focused on upcoming startups (and it vulnerable to promo). A quick look at the articles show that it mostly consists of the founders talking.
      • Business standard This is a routine redressed press release about a product launch announcement.
      • 2 articles in the Mint are both of the type "Mobikwik, a mobile wallet company, has announced that it ...". The third one [62] is a tabloidy coverage of a blog dispute
      The company is an up and coming company, but not yet notable. The coverage in reliable sources is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH at this moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:38, 16 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. Meets CLN. (non-admin closure) J947 18:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      List of archives in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

      Deprodded without rationale. I had originally prodded with the following comment: "I would have turned this into a dab page, but there are no blue links. Not notable as a stand-alone list." Searches on News and Books returned zero hits (other than the Wikipedia article). Scholar, Newspapers, Highbeam and JStor returned zero hits. Onel5969 TT me 23:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm generally in favour of keeping per WP:CLN. In this case, as a main list for Category:Archives in Sri Lanka. This list could apparently be expanded to up to five, which is acceptable, for me. However this category already has List of digital repositories in Sri Lanka, which perhaps could be merged into the nominated page. At any rate, once again, keep per CLN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I want to understand the nomination statement correctly: is the nominator saying that he performed a Google search and found that there were no archives at all in Sri Lanka? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, as per WP:CLN. This list is one of many "List of archives", it contains links to the various archives in Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:16, 9 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.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_March_9&oldid=1142618019"