Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Pallais

Rafael Pallais (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)

Borderline G11/A7 speedy, this is an author whose work is primarily offered through vanity press lulu.com. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article indicates publication in the 1970s through Champ Libre. I think that in itself would be enough to defeat a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, and unreferenced BLP. My basic BEFORE shows third-party sources only about other people of the same name - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any secondary sources. Has entries in the French and Spanish Wikipedias, but they have no secondary sources either. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's versions in other wikipedias too, but they're all even worse than the en: article - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yū Kamonomiya

Yū Kamonomiya (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)

ANN search results:

1) Takuya Kamikita (Little Busters - minor role)

2) Young Kyosuke (Little Busters - minor role)

No lead roles to speak of; subject is not notable in the least. Subject also has no news coverage nor secondary sources to assert her notability; fails both

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject is not covered in any reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment "Why propose a deletion, when you could just jump right into the AFD process? Yes, I'm not supposed to make any more AFDs at this current moment, but seeing as someone else has already proposed a deletion, I might as well speed up the process." - (Sk8erPrince) This is because it causes more work for the admin, you also didnt speed anything up. Had you not removed the proposed deletion, this article would have been deleted on 13:19, 7 October 2016. Now because this is an AfD discussion, and lasts 7 days you extended it to October the 10th. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Getting people to agree with the deletion is what I want to see. That justifies my reasons, and makes deleting the page worthwhile. It's a sense of fulfillment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And might I add, that if anyone deleted your proposed deletion tag, nobody could post the same tag again? You never know who might do that. According to the PROD page, "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD."

That means even trolls could remove it if they so desire, leaving AFD as the only option for deletion. AFD is a much better way of handling this, so that nobody could trample with the proper deletion process. By the sounds of it, you honestly sound like you're in a hurry to get rid of this article. What's the big rush? I could wait three more days to see it get shut down, and I'm pretty sure those that were and will get involved in this AFD could make reasonable, strong points to explain why this article deserves to be deleted. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only Little Busters! is a noted role in ANN. That's about it. And the "young" version is as a supporting character. The main characters are grown up for the series. ANN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the record nobody would have contested the PROD, this article has no indication of notability. When someone contests a PROD they are expected to show sources/meet the prodder's concerns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know? Trolls lurk everywhere on Wikipedia. You can't be absolutely certain. However, I am glad that you voted "Delete". --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Prod tag could be removed on any given circumstance. That's why I'm afraid that trolls would take advantage of that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Alliance (Canada)

Northern Alliance (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication that this organization is notable. I had intended to clean up the largely unreferenced article based on reliable third-party sources but had to conclude that those sources simply do not cover the organization in any detail, causing severe

• Delete per nomination. Mike V • Talk 17:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• delete per nom - not sure there's a reasonable redirect target, Category:Canadian far-right political movements doesn't have a main article or list - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:TNT; the article does not make much sense. Local coverage is insufficient to support an article on what appears to be a minor incident. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator. No significant coverage in reliable sources to assert notability for organizations. Katnimara (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sughada

Sughada (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-This is character have no importance in the epic and there is very little information have about her in Mahabharata. Also this violate the copyright rules of wikipedia.That's why I think this article is not needed and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created page for user as they created the page but did not include all the correct code. -- GB fan 12:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-But her name even not mentioned in the original epic. So I think the article give only wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed delete comment, already noted above, in the nomination statement. -- GB fan 12:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

Anup [Talk] 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm certainly no expert on the content, but a Merge to yuyutsu appears better than deletion. The entire section on literary elements here could use some better cleanup and referencing, however. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In Mahabharata her name was never mentioned there she refered as vaishya women. Thus there is no need of a article in her name. The name here is used it is taken from folkfore. It is not the only name what folkfore state about her. There are other name also like: Suvali,Sukhda etc. Sukhda is most popular among this name. As her name mention in the epic for that i think this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishi2345 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Ishi2345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: I failed to find any sources using Gnews, Gbooks, WP:INDAFD search engines and JSTOR (not surprised!). If one could find some, it should better be redirected to
  Anup [Talk] 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as potentially unverifiable. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Lord

Jacqueline Lord (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)

Procedural AFD - expired PROD, but was killed once at PROD already. Concern was "Not notable. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions." I concur - doesn't seem to pass

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I said in the prod. There is no notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 If somebody wants to work on this in their userspace (as was suggested a couple of times in the discussion), with the undertaking that it will not be moved back to mainspace without substantial improvement, let me know. Vanamonde (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Gurian

Gerald Gurian (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 books of photos might be notable, but there is no substantive coverage of this author at all. This article appears to be brought here from Memory Alpha. That's where it belongs. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the statement that the book series itself might be considered notable; it seems to logically follow that the author of a notable work would then be considered notable as well by virtue of being the creator of the titles. However, a Google search on the author's name does reveal mention and/or quotes in a number of well recognized media sites/news sources including The Telegraph here, USA Today here, the pair of io9.gizmodo.com articles cited in the proposed Gerald Gurian Wikipedia article itself, and the IMDb website reference where the personality is noted to have made an appearance in a recent Smithsonian documentary on Star Trek here. As well, there is further significant coverage of the author and his works (including a Bibliography that lists 8 separate published bodies of work to which this individual contributed) on Memory Alpha here as noted by JzG. It might be favorably argued that this person is well known within the large Star Trek memorabilia collecting community and some portion of the fanbase.

It should also be noted that Gerald Gurian, aside from being listed hundreds of times in the pages of author Marc Cushman's These Are The Voyages - TOS trilogy for his rare photo contributions to that book series, Gurian is also referred to as 'Star Trek historian and archivist' (Volume 3, pg. 104), 'Star Trek archivist and curator of startrekpropauthority.com' (Volume 3, pg. 126), 'Star Trek archivist and prop curator' (Volume 3, pg. 147), and 'Star Trek archivist' (Volume 3, pg. 298 & 424 & 587)within the work and quoted extensively on pages 104, 126, 147, 298, 424, and 587 of the third volume in the series. The entire approx. 2,100 page trilogy is regarded by many as the definitive historical work on the making of the '60s era Star Trek television series.

Additionally, in the Foreword to the second season book authored by Gurian, which was written by Academy Award and Emmy Award winning production artist Doug Drexler, Mr. Drexler refers to Gurian as "the Library of Congress for on stage Star Trek" on page x.

So, given that this multiple book author has been quoted/reported on multiple times in international media, included in a Smithsonian television documentary on Star Trek, interviewed and referenced on multiple occasions in an award-winning history book series on the '60s show, and discussed in exemplary terms by a very prominent Star Trek production artist - could this not cumulatively be considered as "substantive" coverage. Tosresearcher (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Tosresearcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is not inherited. You added sources like PR Newswire, which is not independent. This looks more and more like an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PR Newswire article documented a press release issued by General Motors Corporation - which is a multinational, automobile manufacturer and an independent entity not under the control or influence of Star Trek author Gerald Gurian. A google search employing the same title of the PR Newswire story resulted in numerous matches from other sources. So, in consideration of your concern, the citation in this Wikipedia article has been changed to the story found on www.autoblog.com; in the hopes that it will appropriately be regarded as an independent source. Concerning the comment that Notability is not inherited, does that not assume the notable source is pre-existing or independent and unrelated to the person/object seeking association with it; as opposed to this situation where the individual is the creator of the notable work. It is agreed that simply befriending someone famous or of royal heritage does not confer that status on the new individual, if he/she possesses no other meritorious qualifications. Tosresearcher (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you changed a poress release to a blog? OK. you don't get this Wikipedia thing, do you? What's your connection to the subject? It's rare for someone with so little experience of Wikipedia to create such a long article. Guy (Help!) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you could kindly provide a more meaningful elaboration on your remarks / apparent objections to the subject matter contained in this proposed article; that would sincerely be helpful. You initially charged that Mr. Gurian was not the focus of substantive coverage at all; and so I expanded the article to include multiple newspaper and book references to him, as well as writings by a highly celebrated Star Trek production artist. This was done purely to show evidence of greater notability. Your response seems to entirely dismiss this, and focus on an assertion that one press release which was cited is not "independent". This seems particularly perplexing ... are you suggesting that Mr. Gurian controls the press releases of General Motors, or do you doubt the historical accuracy of the citation that this individual received an engineering award from the automotive company? My intent in listing the citation was merely the desire to fact check some of the biographical information entered in the Career section of this proposed article - that I copied from the biography on a book cover; rather than replicate the content from the book cover entirely without any attempt to fact check. A more detailed explanation of your dismissal of the significance of the added newspaper coverage, as well as the meaning of your "not independent" concern with a corporate press release, would be appreciated. You've also honestly ignored my "transfer of notability" query. To rephrase it, you seem to suggest that an artist can not be considered notable based on the notability of his creations. So, for example, does this mean that you feel the Wikipedia article on Ludwig van Beethoven should be deleted since, none of the significance or notability of any of his musical compositions can be transferred to him personally? I do admit that I am a newcomer to editing Wikipedia; and am anxious for a more meaningful elaboration on your objections, as opposed to just additional unflattering statements or suggestions of inappropriateness. It was not my intent to pollute Wikipedia with undeserving content. If an individial is considered by the Smithsonian institute as being worthy of inclusion in a documentary, and is quoted extensively in a highly regarded history book on Star Trek as well as by international media, I truly do not comprehend the grounds for your persistent objections to an article on someone you say has authored a book series that might be considered noteworthy. Tosresearcher (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read

fancruft. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, classifying 'Star Trek' as "an obscure branch of popular culture" that is "of importance only to a small population of fans", as you seem to be attempting to assert with your use of the term fancruft, seems to "just not get this Star Trek thing" using your own phraseology. In response to the question "How many fans does Star Trek have?", which I just googled, Answers.com has the response "To Date Star Trek has over 40 million fans worldwide (40% recorded from America)". I can not attest to the accuracy of this figure; but I am confident that someone who believes it to be "an obscure branch" is clearly in error. Perhaps you might enjoy reading this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_influence_of_Star_Trek or you could use your cellphone to confer with a friend who is more literate on the Star Trek phenomenon (and you might thank Star Trek for helping to inspire that device). There appears to be many, many pages within this Wikipedia devoted to Star Trek content, and just this single page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek appears to have about 10,000 views per day - which might give you some impression of the popularity of the subject matter. (Extrapolating, that's 3.65 million views annually.)

Finally, you do realize that we are engaging in this discussion in a non-twitter environment, so you should feel free to exceed 140 characters when generating your responses. It seems as if your personal entertainment tastes or lack of affection for Star Trek and/or science fiction might be clouding your judgement here. Tosresearcher (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I've discovered that, after doing a bit of research within Wikipedia, every single episode produced during every season of filming for all the different years that the 5 Star Trek television series were broadcast (= a total of 28 years/seasons of programming) has its own separate Wikipedia page. That means over 700 different pages dedicated to summarizing just the episodes themselves ... not including prominent actors pages or other pages somehow associated with different aspect of the franchise. Wouldn't this establish beyond any doubt that user JzG's assertion of fancruft could not be more incorrect and inappropriate? Tosresearcher (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For what its worth the original series of Star Trek is called TOS by
  Trekkies, so hence 'Tosresearcher' I guess? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 07:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, Tosresearcher reflects TOS, Paste. It seems that there has not been any significant new non-fiction books casting light on the early series for many years now until the fairly recent release of the book series by Marc Cushman a couple of years ago and now these ones by Gerald Gurian. Tosresearcher (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:TNT; a barely readable vanity page. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough coverage of him to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly satisfies GNG to justify an article. Per K.e.coffman remarks, Career section has been reworded to read as a neutral presentation of facts. Tosresearcher (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wildly promotional piece built on poor sources about non-notable person.
  talk) 05:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete - fails GNG - many of the sources are from his own website or book (they fail
  WP:INDY, a basic requirement of notability) - or are press releases or in-universe mentions, which again are not independent. I get it that he is a substantial figure in the world of Star Trek fandom; that is not the world WP inhabits, although we do struggle to keep our head above the water in fields where there are active online communities and sources are generally bloggy. But this is indeed fancruft and shouldn't exist in WP. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:COI. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Also, based on your edit-history, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing. You´re new here, and we learn the ways of WP as we go along. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Grabergs Graa Sang, but my initial goodwill and esteem for this website has been greatly diminished by my opening encounters with small minded, arrogant admins and their mean-spirited cohorts. For example, just Google the userid JzG who started this deletion request, and see the hatred on the web for him at the website Encyclopedia Dramatica (which lists his long history of profane behavior on Wikipedia, indeed along with its own profanity). And you'll be amazed and ask yourself how in the world could this environment be allowed to exist with no meaningful oversight. So I don't anticipate I will care to waste much more time in this sad place. Tosresearcher (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tosresearcher:, did it ever occur to you they might be lying? The website claims I have no college degree - in fact I have a BA from Yale University, a post graduate Diploma from LSE, an MSc from the University of London and several other postgraduate qualifications. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is your choice, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ED is not a reliable source for anything. From the ED about page: "In other words, expect blatant, biased lies, and expect boring truths to get deleted quickly." It's funny, but only occasionally accurate. --tronvillain (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy for the time being. I'll readily acknowledge I was canvassed but believe my opinion shouldn't be discounted for that. Agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång - the canvas exposure was very well written BTW - great care should be taken with
  the article, the admin, and everything. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 12:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Looking carefully at the article's reference, I do not believe that the criteria for notability is met. Sources are thin and do not amount to significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is what I say, tentatively, although open to a merge suggestion, say merge to something like List of StarTrek fan authors. I'd like some StarTrekkers to give some insight on how Gerald Gurian ranks among StarTrek authors/fans, but it sounds like GG is up there and the StarTrek world is big and even "important". I would think top 10 authors in the area, say, should be individually notable, and that anyone in top 50 would be list-item-notable. Of course the sources are going to be within the StarTrek fan world; I don't expect they would be New York Times articles.

FYI, I saw notice of this AFD by Tosresearcher's complaint post at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I bow to new editors generally, and I tend to sympathize with new editors' perceptions of unfairness in Wikipedia's processes (it is in fact _reasonable_ to complain, in general, about being hauled to AFD), and I think we should not let the fact of their complaining be held against this editor and this article. I wish they would tone it down though and not trumpet what some website says negatively about one editor.

Per some comment(s) above, one or more of Gerald Gurian's books is agreed to be notable. If so, then consider the article to be a combo article about the book and the author (or require it to be adapted a bit to cover the book more), and then it would seem peevish to insist on deleting this. Adapt it, keep it, rather than seem to be punishing. Can some editors help adapt the article to cover more about the book(s) by this author? And comment about what is required for the book(s) to be considered notable. The book(s) have multiple reviews. --doncram 13:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I reworked the article into this version featuring the photography book series first and the author second, which I think works better. So "Keep" although a rename/move is appropriate. --doncram 13:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts Doncram, but trying to hang an article about the author on a claim that one of his works was notable just seems really awkward. If a book is notable, then we should have an article on the book rather than trying to shoehorn that into an article about an otherwise non-notable person. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now there is a clash between title and content that doesn´t work, and I think "agreed to be notable" is exaggerating what is in the comments. Currently I don´t see Wikipedia:Notability (books) being satisfied in this article either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no evidence of enough coverage in independent RS to make this person notable. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. If the book is notable, then we can have an article on that. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per Fyddlestix, there aren't enough significant independent reliable sources here to meet
  WP:BIO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete and userfy. Running a Google for GERALD GURIAN (exact) + STAR TREK isn't gonna get us over the GNG bar. I do find the nominator's idea that the BOOK SERIES might be notable to be provocative. Assuming that several legitimate, mainstream reviews can be mustered, a rewrite from this angle which also includes author information might get us all where we need to go, with notable content added and the encyclopedia expanded. As an aside, I found the whinging about this AfD nomination at Jimbotalk to be more than a little ridiculous. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, I do appreciate your good faith insights in this discussion, but I must stress that I don't feel my "whining", as you suggest, could be termed "ridiculous". I sincerely believed I'd given multiple independent reasons/events why Gurian might be considered noteworthy in my proposed article (and even submitted a list I composed with eight points at the top of this discussion); which, in all honestly, Usr JzG dismissed out of hand without the courtesy of an explanation and insisted Gurian might be notable for a Single Event (I believe he referenced BLP1E). To me, there are truly eight, as multiple book authorship or a television appearance or multiple newspaper appearances or quotes in highly respected history book series on Trek or a prestigious engineering award, etc. are not negligible things. I think it's quite uncommon for a person to be the recipient of all these things. Plus, I was concerned with JzG's attempt to trivialize or negate the validity of my citations without any decent explanation why. For example, I still don't understand why a Press Release from a multi-billion dollar corporation like General Motors attesting to the fact that it bestowed a significant internal engineering award on Gurian can not be considered a valid reference/citation. Do people here believe that Gurian - who was/is obviously a lower level employee, not an executive at GM - controls the content of the Press Releases of that company? I can certainly understand how if Gurian himself had issued a Press Release claiming he'd received such an award; then that would not seem independent. When I attempted to change the citation from the GM Press release to an article on some general autoblog I googled, which was posted on the net by some automotive enthusiast that could not possibly (I imagined) be associated with Gurian or GM; JzG again immediately dismissed this action with some snide remark that clearly implied ... oh, you've substituted garbage for more garbage and you don't understand anything about Wikipedia. Thus, I sincerely feel I am not being "ridiculous" to suggest that my initial good faith attempts to compose an article here were not met with civility. Regarding JzG, I thought "who is this individual, to be so dismissive and uncivil like this and be an apparently powerful admin?". So I Googled his username and found an amazingly hated-filled, profanely ranting page about him on the net. So, if his actions have so enraged someone to go through the bother of producing such an article, that certainly can't speak to a universal affection for this particular admin, can it? And the hate page claimed JzG used excessive profanity in his discussions at Wikipedia and posted links. I admit that I just clicked on a single link, not all, and indeed found a rather offensive outburst by JzG on some talk/discussion page. Which seemed to suggest to me that perhaps my initial unfavorable view of JzG might be warranted. And I note that immediately after I "whined" about JzG, as you suggest, the very next person to make a post on Jimbo's talk page issued a more severe complaint about this same admin. I'm certainly not perfect, but I honestly never spout profanity / curse words when I write or even in my spoken conversation. There is never a situation where someone need resort to spewing filth to make his argument. That is how I was raised. So I honestly don't feel my initial vocal protests over JzG are entirely unwarranted. However, I do see that, based on the multiple, clear Delete assessments posted about my article in these discussions by other seemingly unbiased, good faith members here -- that I truly must have underestimated the notability threshold that the subject of a new article here must surpass. (It does amaze me that someone who appeared on TV, international media, quoted in books and an author of multiple books, and is the focus of multiple articles on the memory-alpha wiki etc. is so hastily termed completely irrelevant here. That just boggles my mind. I would not have composed this proposed article if I had not sincerely felt the subject matter was appropriate.) Thanks again for sharing your insights, and if JzG blocks me for sharing my honest perceptions, that is fine. As I've said previously, I have sadly lost considerable esteem for this place by virtue of such a truly uncivil welcome. Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my assessment of your escalation rubbed you wrong. Perhaps this is cultural, Wikipedians do not like (and frequently refuse to have) the same debate in multiple venues. From a new article to an Articles for Deletion debate to Jimbotalk to rail against a "corrupt" (your word) administrator to the Foundergod is an all too neat, very tiresome escalation. But let us let that be. Newcomers to WP misunderstand the deletion process, which is actually one of the more rational, reliable, and predictable aspects of Wikipedia. Consider AfD a sort of traffic court, in which the most common verdicts are being released unscathed, largely immunized against future prosecutions — or the death penalty. It is a tough neighborhood. Essentially, once challenged, defenders of an article must demonstrate the existence of multiple, independent, published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject of the article. Press releases? Not published. Most blog posts? Unable to demonstrate presumed reliability. What we are all looking for here — and I say this without hostility and with a desire to preserve what is preservable and to defend what is defendable — are mainstream newspaper articles or significant book mentions or academic journal articles dealing substantially with Mr. Gurian.

Come up with 3 of these, and life is golden, because "notability is not temporary" as we say, and the subject will have run the gauntlet and emerged unscathed. Short of that, we are in damage mitigation mode. It doesn't look to me, in a cursory glimpse at the internets, that such sources exist. What I advocate is that the article be kicked back to you to see if you can get to the place where notability requirements are satisfied approaching the matter from another angle. If Mr. Gurian's BOOKS are covered substantially in multiple, independent, published, presumably reliable sources, that's the way out of the maze. If they aren't, chalk it up to a fair cop by the traffic officer on the beat and move along to your next topic. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable insights, Carrite! Just a question now, with regard to the notability of Mr. Gurian and specifically dealing with significant book mentions. As I noted earlier, Gurian is quoted extensively in the Season Three volume of Marc Cushman's These Are The Voyages: TOS history books on Star Trek. Both Marc Cushman and each of the first two Books in the trilogy have separate pages here at Wikipedia, however, I don't believe a page for the Season Three book has yet been created. FYI, here's a link to the Season Two volume ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_The_Voyages:_TOS,_Season_Two. Would any of the Gurian book mentions in the 6 different episode chapters that Cushman refers to him be able to qualify as a "significant book mentions or academic journal articles" source you said was required to establish notability. One such mention of Gurian takes place on Page 298 of the book in the Chapter dedicated to the episode "For The World Is Hollow and I Have Touched The Sky". The mention spans about 12 lines and roughly a couple of hundred words. It begins "Star Trek archivist Gerald Gurian said, 'For The World .... is yet another outstanding episode, based on the quite interesting concept of a multi-generational ship disguised as an asteroid. And it was wonderful to have an episode focus so prominently on Dr. McCoy" ... etc. etc. for the remainder of a fairly lengthy quote that discusses some interesting aspects of the show. So, Carrite, is that something that might be considered a significant book mention? There are about 6 of those in total spread out in different chapters of the book, and some are longer quotes, some are shorter. One immediate problem that I can see, even if the quotes are considered significant, is that they are to be found in the physical pages of the hard copy book and not displayed online, as far as I know, anywhere on the internet. But they are quite real mentions and lengthy quotes of Gurian's impressions of different episodes. Thanks for your thoughts in response to this. Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I clicked the "Scholar" link at the very top of this page in the Find Sources: "Gerald Gurian" region, this new citation emerges, apparently in a book/paper authored by a L Geraghty ...

“A Reason to Live”: Utopia and Social Change in Star Trek Fan Letters L Geraghty - Popular Media Cultures, 2015 - Springer ... he provided the world with “a glimpse of the future”, implying that it will happen, and that future utopia will be “one where mankind didn't fight over land and money, where there was no hunger, and it didn't matter what color, race, or gender you were”.11 Gerald Gurian goes one ...

and another L Geraghty work, looks like a Book also shows up, which I imagine indicates Geraghty mentions Gurian somewhere in the pages of this work ...

[BOOK] Living with Star Trek: American Culture and the Star Trek Universe L Geraghty - 2007 - books.google.com Page 1. LINCOLN GERAGHTY LIVING WITH STAR TREK AMERICAN CULTURE AND THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE Page 2. Page 3. UVINCj wiTH STAR TRGiK Thls One Page 4. Page 5. UVINCj wiTH STAR TREK AMERICAN ...

There is also this citation listed, apparently related to Gurian's engineering work ...

[CITATION] Vehicle Re-Sequencing and Discrete Event Process Simulation G Gurian, J Shore - SIMULATION SERIES, 1997 - SCS SOCIETY FOR COMPUTER … Related articles Cite Save

and of course there was the somewhat lengthy mention of Gurian in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10652413/Oscars-the-award-for-the-most-valuable-prop-goes-to....html

and the recent mention/quote in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2016/09/06/far-fetched-gizmos-star-trek-todays-tech-toys/85658282/

Tosresearcher (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, I'm a HUGE Star Trek nerd. I've been to conventions. I own autographs & on-set paraphernalia. My oldest child could recite the opening monologue at the age of 3. So this is not an unbiased opinion: Delete this article. It reeks of
  WP:COI, lacks any appreciable indication of notability, and is patently about a book, despite being titled after the author. To be clear: I own and regularly read this book. I truly enjoy it. I still think it doesn't deserve an article, however the sources given are certainly good enough to include this in Cultural influence of Star Trek. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Indeed; though to be fair, it's been substantially rewritten since being nominated for deletion with the idea of making it about the book rather than the author.--tronvillain (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the correct way forward, assuming that two or three good, serious reviews can be mustered. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as articles/reviews on Gurian's books themselves, here's what I've just seen from around the web:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/to-boldly-go-provides-a-rare-look-behind-the-scenes-of-1767366137

http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-fascinating-look-at-life-behind-the-scenes-of-star-tr-1786711120

http://www.geekalerts.com/star-trek-to-boldly-go-rare-photos-from-the-tos-soundstage-season-one/

http://www.fiz-x.com/original-star-trek-series-rare-behind-scenes-set-photos-surfaced/

http://scifidesign.com/2016/03/29/to-boldly-go-rare-photos-from-the-tos-soundstage-season-one/

http://geektyrant.com/news/rare-behind-the-scenes-set-photo-from-the-original-star-trek-series

http://www.blastr.com/2016-9-27/fascinating-check-out-these-rare-bts-pics-star-trek-tos-season-2

http://www.ilcineocchio.it/tv/star-trek-18-rarissime-foto-dal-dietro-le-quinte-della-stagione-2-della-serie-originale/ Tosresearcher (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is exactly what i meant about low-quality, bloggy sources. ack. Jytdog (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, do you know that Gizmodo is one of the biggest technology/pop culture/media sites around? Over the last 30 days, its various pages attracted 38.9 million unique global visitors. Well over a million people a day. https://www.quantcast.com/gizmodo.com#trafficCard May I say that I'm getting the feeling some folks here might just be predisposed to belittle whatever evidence I submit in good faith to support my cause. Please, Jytdog, tell my why Gizmodo is so very low quality and unacceptable? And what are some examples of more substantial/pop culturally significant sites to cover a Star Trek book release? Tosresearcher (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep there are two gizmodos there; both already cited in the article and not great. and the other six low-quality bloggy sites you posted? Look, the book isn't Das Kapital or even Everything and More (book). It is for fans of a TV show; the sources are going to be low quality blogs, not the NYT Book Review or the London Review of Books. Don't have a cow. Jytdog (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the two Gizmodos are dedicated entirely to the books written by Gurian; they do not merely mention the books in passing and they speak very positively (although, briefly) of the works and also display large galleries of imagery from them. So I certainly wouldn't condemn these mentions as inferior as you seem to be doing. It seems to me that many here are being overly dismissive of this proposed article because they cannot see the forest for the trees. On one hand, you seem to be critical of the books for not having NYT Book Reviews and then in the same breath admit that one shouldn't expect such huge interest because they are, as you say, books "for fans of a TV show". I propose that they have indeed drawn notable praise from the correct sources that one would normally hope for in this case ... a tremendously popular media site like Gizmodo, multiple Trek/scifi blogs, certainly significant people in the Star Trek universe like Academy and Emmy Award winning artist Doug Drexler who is overflowing in his praise, and Star Trek historian Marc Cushman who authored the foreword to the first book. And another example of not seeing the forest for the trees is this continually frowned upon -- for no intelligently explained reason -- Press Release from General Motors about Gurian receiving an award. It should be obvious to even the most addle brained members here that the huge multibillion dollar corporation GM is not the mouthpiece of Gurian. So a press release from them confirming that they did indeed bestow a prestigious award on him should be regarded as legitimate, should it not? Yet multiple individuals here have indicated that PRs are strictly forbidden!!! Without, it seems, considering the circumstances of this situation in the least. It is obvious to me that if it is Gurian himself issuing the release then the fact could certainly be in doubt and require verification. Yet a huge corporate press statement listing Gurian along with a few dozen other award recipients should be accepted in good faith, should it not? When a lawyer attempts to prove a fact in a court of law, does he not prefer reliable first hand testimony as opposed to hearsay? Why, on this PR issue, is the word of GM considered untrustworthy while the word of some unrelated newspaper journalist (who, by the way, guess what!!! ... would have composed his article UPON RECEIVING the previously discussed GM press release) be so highly sought after here? This place defies common sense. Tosresearcher (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And has no one any response/insights to the "Scholar" search links / citations, new book mentions of Gurian I discuss above on Gurian himself, and my inquiry on the lengthy Cushman book quotes/references to Gurian -- that Carrite seemed to suggest was the type of thing we are looking for? Please see my remarks a few paragraphs above. I am still proceeding to forward my case with a good faith presentation of facts/thoughts, anxiously awaiting the next dismissive observation.

Here is yet another new book review that appears to have been published just today on the second Gurian book. It actually is quite lengthy and is still another enthusiastic endorsement of these works. Here's a particularly favorable quote: "The final line: Without question, this is a must own publication for every Star Trek fan. This is the Star Trek celebration that fans have been looking for. It’s extremely rare to find anything new for a show fifty years old, but Gerald Gurian has done it. If you know any Star Trek fan, this is what to give them for the upcoming holiday season. Highest possible recommendation. Overall grade: A+"

http://www.scifipulse.net/in-review-to-boldly-go-rare-photos-from-the-tos-soundstage-season-two/ Tosresearcher (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the links you provided above and I didn't see much about Gerald Gurian himself. Feel free to provide excerpts here from those links (indicating each corresponding link) that give information about Gerald Gurian himself in case I missed something. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bob K31416. The single scifipulse.net link above was provided as a possible significant new source to aid in the conversion of this article to a book article rather than a Gurian himself article. And, re: Gurian himself, I'd actually provided new material not in the form of those 6 or 7 links, but rather the Cushman book quotes I discussed in the paragraph below Carrite's comment on October 8th. Best. Tosresearcher (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your message of 06:29, 8 October, which I thought was what you were referring to, and I had the impression there wasn't much information about Gurian himself in the Cushman book. If there was such information about Gurian himself, you can provide the excerpts here for discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your reply. Those book passages were not about Gurian, they are lengthy quotes (200 to 300 words) from Gurian regarding his impressions about the various Star Trek episodes. So I'll assume they are also irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. Tosresearcher (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per, well, per what everyone else is saying. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Xie

Coca Xie (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 article doesn't have reliable sources that confer notability. The sources are self published or affiliated with the subject. DarthVader (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Speedily. Blatant promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:PROMO; pure unadulterated spam. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goodix Inc

Goodix Inc (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 company. A Google search brings up some results, but nothing that would merit its own article at this point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; Note that the user who created the page wrote that edits would be incoming. I added an under construction tag to the article for them. This seems a bit premature, however, I can't see how notability is going to be established for this one either.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Article creator is at ANI now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete notability not asserted. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• delete as it stands I see some mentions in RSes, but they're mostly passing with a soupcon of churnalised press releases. Closest I've seen to evidence anyone cares is [25] and that says "blog" at the top. I'm willing to be convinced, if someone wants to dredge GNews and screen out the churnalism ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG 'churnalism' is my new favourite word...  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:TNT this article please. It's totally useless the way it is. The creator seems to be on a spree of creating articles like these without adding any references or working on them. They have been brought to ANI for disruptive editing and I don't see any indication that they will stop. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as spam; 'nuff said. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as entirely advertising, from specifying the company information to its services and then followed by business partners, there's nothing here for substance and I'll also then note this is unsourced, explained therefore by the fact this was advertising and that alone (advertisers will never care about what genuinely goes to an article because that's not the mindset of advertising). SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus has consistently been that local and student newspapers are not sufficient for the notability of local student athletes. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadya Gill

Nadya Gill (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

• Delete for reasons stated by the nominator. Not enough independent coverage for
  WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I am not good at football. But am confused. Isn't the under 17 FIFA world cup a Tier 1 international match as per FIFA? And therefore, would not playing two matches by the subject in the FIFA under 17 World Cup be considered significant per NFOOTBALL? (As I mentioned, I am bad at football and might have got this wrong). Lourdes 13:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, tier one means a match between the senior national teams of two FIFA members.

WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Sir Sputnik and thanks. Is there some site that shows which matches are classified at what Tier? The FIFA link in the guideline only provides a summary statement (e.g. representative A teams), but does not clearly differentiate. Lourdes 02:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A teams = senior team. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MbahGondrong, which is the RS that confirms this? And the FIFA link also says that even scratch teams can be playing Tier 1 matches. My point is, is there any RS that defines what matches or cups are Tier 1 and so on? How do editors get to know that the FIFA u-17 World cup is not a Tier 1 international match? Thanks. Lourdes 01:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a scratch team if I may ask? IMHO youth players (even national players) can be seen as reserves for the senior team (A team), I have never heard of any B team/Tier 2 team of an U17 national team. Again its my opinion based on my knowledge of football. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Probably
  WP:TOOSOON Now that the article's been cleaned up and refs added, should make things easier if/when it's re-published in the future. Hmlarson (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Qualifies on
  GNG per the following reliable sources which discuss Gill extensively:Concacaf news report feature on Gill titled Canada’s Gill rises to occasion at CWU17, Quchronicle news feature on Gill, Sportzedge news report feature on Gill containing 4-5 paragraphs of reviewing Gill and subsequently an interview too; the report is titled 17-year-old sophomore Nadya Gill leads Quinnipiac soccer into 2016 season, There's one more feature report on Gill ([26]) which can be used within the article, but as it is a University TV channel, I am not considering it. Nevertheless, the other reports comfortably put the subject above BASIC and GNG. Most of these have been included in the subject's article. Lourdes 03:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Quinnipiac Chronicle is a university student newspaper, so it's deprecated as unable to carry notability for the same reason that q30television can't. Sportzedge is "powered by News8" — but "News8",

primary source that cannot aid in showing notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]