Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 13

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 06:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes
Doğan Haber Ajansı, a Turkish news agency, Sportstv, a national sports publication, Erzurum Gazetesi, a local newspaper, Bursada Bugün, another local newspaper, and Çayyolu Haber, a national news magazine. These were found on the first two pages of Google results, and there are pages more with references from Turkish media on both a local and national level. --LauraHale (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Look. Stop. Just please stop. You are a veteran editor with serious experience, and I am just flabbergasted that you are tossing up these sources in AfD after AfD that you know full well (or should) do not satisfy the GNG. A mere mention of the subject's name does not meet the GNG, period, ever, whether the source involved is a blogger or the largest circulation newspaper in the continent. A list in a roster does not meet the GNG, period, ever. The GNG holds that: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis mine) Not a single source you've thrown up in any of these AfDs provides significant, non-trivial coverage to any of the subjects. Ravenswing 01:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:BEFORE, or else just doesn't care. Smartyllama (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I would love to see the sources that
WP:ROUTINE coverage (most of the articles are brief summaries of game matches with her name listed among those that scored) and nothing with significant coverage as required and defined by the GNG (Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material). Yosemiter (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Plays for national team in Turkey. I don't see that
WP:NHOCKEY applies to the majority of women ice hockey players if you look at its affiliated essay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is not one top women's league in the world listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. Why is that? Hmlarson (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This has been explained to you more than once, and I can't help it
if you're not listening. Firstly, NHOCKEY does not, and never has, accorded presumptive notability to playing for a national team; Criterion #6 states "Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year." The Turkish women's team has never played for the World Championship.
Secondly -- and this has been explained to you as well -- Criterion #2 refers to two specific periods in hockey history: the 19th century pre-professional Canadian leagues, and the Cold War era where the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia required their players to play in domestic amateur-only leagues.
Finally -- and this likewise has been explained to you -- the reason that women's leagues aren't listed in NHOCKEY/LA is that nowhere in the world does women's hockey receive enough coverage to be able to declare every player who's ever played in such a league presumptively notable, and individual players must rise and fall with the GNG; it's unfortunate, but the world has neither asked you nor me what it's supposed to consider worthy of note. Would you like to propound a valid ground upon which to keep? Ravenswing 05:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
brief routine mentions. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Clearly fails NHOCKEY, and the notion that this player passes GNG is just plain silly. I viewed all the references used above and they all prove that Nil exists, and plays hockey, but that is about it.
18abruce (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I'm going to make almost the exact same argument I made for deleting the
WP:NHOCKEY. The Turkish sources described above do not seem to be any indepth profiles of her, but merely routine coverage of the team. The clincher for me is that she has no article on the Turkish Wikipedia, even with all the Turkish language sources used for this article. I know the Turkish Wikipedia has been blocked since April, but if her career had been notable up to that point, wouldn't there be something about her there? Can a Turkish player who is not considered notable enough for a Turkish article be notable enough for an English one? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I don't find the argument "if [one or another female hockey player in a Turkish semi-professional league] were notable, there would already be an article about her in the Turkish Wikipedia" compelling. New articles about notable topics are still being added to the English Wikipedia every day; not all of them are newly notable on the day their article goes live, either. The lack of an article is not ipso facto proof that one was proposed and rejected as lacking notability. —
^talk 20:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd agree with you if that were the only criteria we were using. I'm saying that after we've exhausted English sourcing and still can't agree, that it's one more argument tipping the scales against notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:02, 22 August 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Saniya Zia Ul Haq

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

doesn't pass

WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete as no coverage found. Greenbörg (talk) 11:29, 17 August 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.

velut luna 07:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa

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

Article about an "author and activist" that is sourced only to the subject of the article himself. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::We have the case of a crew of vandals in which Thomas.W is deleting in bad-faith several articles with the intention of creating disruption. I call this an act of vandalism by a Wikipedia user who is abusing his editor's privileges. Oficinalis (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Comment of block evading vandal stricken.[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cocainaenvenenada. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The version of the article from 24 June, prior to editing by Oficinalis, was suitably sourced. I've reverted to that version (while retaining the AFD tag). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article has been reverted to the stable version that existed before the sockpuppet appeared. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 14 August 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.

N-Dimensional rotation matrix generation algorithm

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

Not a suitable topic for an article. I proposed it for deletion when it was just one method; it’s been expanded since but not in a good way. It’s even clearer it’s not on a single topic, or at least not one we don’t already have articles on, such as Orthogonal matrix and Rotation matrix. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The original creator of the article has written his response
talk) 10:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Without regard to the present quality of the article: I believe this is an actual topic. Perhaps not a very notable one (like the topic of rotational invariance of physical laws), but important enough for those who actually must generate such matrices in practical problems. I'd agree with the page creator that it could be included in rotation matrix, but it would be too specialized for inclusion there. YohanN7 (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I can't evaluate the sources, but as a layperson this seems far too specialized for a general purpose reference work. Sandstein 10:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTTEXTBOOK. This is also much too specialized for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete - copyvio of http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ajcam.20170702.04.html. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, except that article is CC 4.0 and is cited at the bottom, so I'm not 100% sure... I should also note that both this article and that one are probably by the same person. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The version I proposed for deletion (linked above or check the history) contained just one method, the one in that paper, and normally we do not have articles on methods unless they are especially notable, which this clearly was not. Also the article’s creator is the same as the author of that paper, based on their name and their focus on this one article. Since then they’ve added more methods, so it is more on methods for orthogonal matrices, but unfortunately we already have an article on such matrices, which covers such methods in an appropriate way.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:34, 14 August 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

German presidential election, 2017#Candidates. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Engelbert Sonneborn

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

Single-sourced

WP:NPOL just because he exists -- to get an article, he would have to either have already had preexisting notability for other reasons, or be able to show quite a lot more than just two pieces of media coverage of which one was written by his own son. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick search finds lots more coverage, in major newspapers and specifically about him (and his candidature), some of which sources are used in the German article on him. Warofdreams talk 22:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources are about his candidacy. I have been unable to find out more about him than the fact that he is a nice old man. —Kusma (t·c) 18:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not seem much more to be said about him than "#REDIRECT
WP:BLP1E. The main thing he is notable for is that his son used the candidacy to criticise Frank-Walter Steinmeier over the latter's lack of support for Murat Kurnaz, which is probably better placed in articles about Steinmeier or Kurnaz. —Kusma (t·c) 10:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The
general notability guideline. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
All of these are in the context of the 2017 presidential election, and none of them say anything in depth about him. —Kusma (t·c) 18:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion it fails
WP:NPOLITICIAN.-Umair Aj (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete --
WP:NPOLITICIAN fail and there's nothing better out there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the treatment by the subject on German WP demonstrates not only importance but the availability of sourcing for encyclopedic biography. There is a difference between a failed candidate for the national legislature and a candidate for national presidency that drew 3/4 of a percent of the vote — which is a historically significant number. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
outside this one event. He is mentioned in the election's article though, so redirecting makes more sense than deleting. Regards So Why 08:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
German presidential election, 2017#Candidates; the mention there is the appropriate level of coverage for this joke candidacy. Sandstein 09:39, 21 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Robinson IV

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

Companion article oto RRE Ventures, the adjoining AfD. Obvious promotional intent--the same single purpose account wrote the two articles. Similarly nothing here but a list of companies he has invested in (repeated twice in the article) and similar directory information. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this article is OK, after I rewrote the piece. It was so clearly a resume cut and pasted into WP. Someone needs to take the URLS and make them into real citations. The original was really lazy work. I have no interest in doing the same for RRE Ventures. The author of that article is user:Jdriv, who I believe is the selfsame James D. Robinson IV and has an obvious COI. Rhadow (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- primarily known for RRE Ventures, which has been deleted at AfD. There's nothing else there, so delete. Sources I see are not independent of the company and / or PR-driven. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
nothing really notable. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Article meets GNG standard: significant coverage from independent sources. The only argument left is that the subject is commonplace. Having a powerful father, going to Harvard Business School, and starting a VC firm may seem commonplace, because you often read about them, but how many people actually do it? Compare the number with how many articles there are about college professors, for example. Or the number of articles about ball-players. Rhadow (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:50, 13 August 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. Verging on keep; most editors feel that the promotionalism issue can be (or has now been) addressed through editing. Sandstein 09:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Bachelder

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

Clearest case of G11 for a BLP I've ever seen, but that was declined and the SPA creator contested the PROD. Notability doesn't even come into the picture here:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an advertising platform. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TonyBallioni, you link to
New York Times, Forbes
, etc. of which there are plenty more besides those currently referenced – just use the news tab in your own nomination. I don't see how you can say that the current text isn't relevant or encyclopedic content. It describes exactly what she is known for as is reflected in the sources. Have you read them?

Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen

is a major chain and Bachelder ran it for ten years. Business writers tend to judge things by the numbers and the numbers were phenomenal, so their reviews tend to reflect that bias. It sounds like you are saying that if the sources are positive, the subject must be deleted because otherwise it would be promotional. If we can find negative or just skeptical sources, their opinions should also be included here, assuming that they meet the source requirements and biographies policies.

Bachelder was previously president of

New York Times and this too should probably be represented in some form. Again, there are dozens of pieces in well-known outlets which have not yet been used here. It sounds like you haven't read anything but are just saying that you don't like it.South by southwest (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: South by southwest has made only 7 edits and is the author of Cheryl Bachelder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not nominating this for deletion on the basis of notability, which is a guideline. I am nominating it for deletion based on our

WP:N). Your response here shows that you are on Wikipedia with the intent of promoting the subject, and further strengthens the case for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Tony, I responded here because you asked me to. You also asked me to post to the discussion page of the article. I did, but you never replied. It's not clear how anything in

Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc.

because the "orphaned" banner asked people to do this.

If you feel that the coverage of Bachelder in the sources referenced is unduly positive, it seems to me that the right solution is to find sources which are more critical to balance them out. I have already suggested one vein of further research, about her failed stint as president of KFC. Perhaps you can think of another. Or maybe you can write something yourself and get it published, then we can include a summary of your criticisms and attribute them to you. Any of these would seem more constructive than deleting well-referenced material about a person who very easily meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.South by southwest (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:GNG. Properly sourced. No worse than many other biographies of business people. The only issue here seems to be that it was created by an editor without a long editing history, which is only an issue if one is looking at the editors rather than the articles. Our readers don't come here to look at the backgrounds of editors. They come for the information contained in the articles. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as an obvious vanity piece for the promotion of the BLP subject. It's little more than a CV - like a social media entry - and doesn't even include any traditional bio information. It is a vehicle for spam for her companies. See
WP:COINOTBIAS. That makes it a clear G11 and just a plethora of sources never alone adds up to notability anyway. Whether or not it applies here, and whether or not the article passes notability and/or MoS standards, the article also has all the hallmarks of having been written by the subject's employee, PR agency, or an otherwise regular Wikipedia editor plying their wares. A practice which is not only a COI, but a conflict with policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Blatant promotion It is absolutely impossible that anyone but a pr flack would write "Bachelder's career path stands out somewhat among those of high-powered executives for having been interpersed with several periods working as a full-time mother and homemaker". Not even the person herself would write that. No naive volunteer copying our sometimes promotional articles would put in something as bad as that. I am thinking of speedying as deliberate violation of tou, which I consider one form of vandalism. She probably is notable enough for an article, but we delete vandalism, not try to improve it. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - ""Bachelder's career path stands out somewhat among those of high-powered executives for having been interpersed with several periods working as a full-time mother and homemaker" Not even the person herself would write that." Actually, Bachelder did pretty much write that in Bloomberg as referenced and attributed.[5] As you can see, the quote "I tell women, Don't be afraid to manage your life" is specifically about this period.South by southwest (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal favourite was for her trademark style of management, which she calls "servant leadership.", which is clearly something that you would find on the back of a book duskjacket. Given that she is an author who has written a book on the topic, it suggests that the work was in fact written by her publisher or someone related. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As is clearly referenced, it's from a review of the book in
    Wall Street Journal: "CEO Cheryl Bachelder Says Rebuilding Trust With Franchisees Was a Key Ingredient" [7] "Trademark" might not be an apt characterization, as the origin of the phrase would appear to be a fellow named Robert K. Greenleaf, see Servant leadership South by southwest (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Speedy keep for passing
WP:BIO. Forbes wrote an article about her[8], Fortune interviewed her[9] and The New York Times published one she wrote about herself.[10] She was the President of KFC and the CEO of Popeye's, two household names. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Addendum. Also a Business Insider article.[11]

- None of those being reasons to speedy keep per
  WP:DEL4. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - TonyBallioni, once again you are saying things that are demonstrably untrue. You nominated it for
    WP:G11 speedy deletion. That was declined by an admin. You seem to make a habit of distorting facts in these discussions. Please be more careful. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Yes, and two admins above agree with me that it should be deleted via G11. I'm not destoring the facts: I mentioned in my nomination that it was declined. G11 is an ambiguous criteria and when there are disagreements on that, we sort it out at AfD. I nominated it for deletion here precisely because I thought the decline was inappropriate and wanted to take it to the community for more discussion. This is the appropriate forum for that conversation. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are absolutely right. Please accept my sincere apologies. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be a way to write about Bachelder in a non-biased way that creates a reliable article, but this is not it. This is so one sided and promotional, and so full of unexplained buzz words, like "servant leadership" (that also begs for deep religious questions about Bachelder, as they say at get religion, there are religious ghosts all over this article). I think the last sentance sums it up. It mentions a Wall Street Journal article, where Bachelder was interviewed, along with dozens of other businesswomen. From the extremely little substantive information I get from this article, I have to say I have postive vibes for Bachelder, but the article is lacking in basic detailed depth. The article is way too plagued with gushing prose to survive. Right now I see no reason that the substantive parts should not be included in the article on Popeyes. A new attempt at an article on Bachelder could be done, but it should deal with her whole life, and if we cannot get insights onto things like her educational background and what motivated her to be a full-time mother, than I question weather she is really truly a public figure to the extent having an article on her is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think the last sentence sums it up. It mentions a Wall Street Journal article, where Bachelder was interviewed, along with dozens of other businesswomen." Check the citations, it refers to a book authored by Joann Lublin, who is also the management news editor of the Wall Street Journal.[12][13] I agree that the article should do a better job of covering aspects of her life besides her career, but how can this be done if it is also deleted? You can edit and add to the prose right now. I've put in a start on what should be a collaborative process.South by southwest (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most articles mention personal lives, education, and at least when it is relevant religion. Both "servant leadership" and the decision to be a full-time mother make me suspect there might be strong religious issues involved here, although I could be wrong. Servant leadership is often seen to have deep Christian roots and to derive from a statement by Jesus Christ. From this article it appears that Bachelder appeared fully grown in 1978, at some point left the corporate world to raise some children who we know nothing about, not even their number, and presumably her husband worked full time, but we do not actually know such a man exists, in 1995 she reentered the corporate world, for reasons which are somehow obscure in the case of this allegedly notable person, and was what some would have us believe was a key mover at Dominos Pizza, a company founded by a very devout Catholic, which may or may not be relevant in some way, After being there 5 years, she took the lead at KFC, which is just a divsion of Yum Brands. After 3 years when she seems to have done nothing substantive, she then did nothing of note for 3 years. What is this article not telling us?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What does any of this have to do with deleting or keeping the article? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I read through Bachelder's Linkedin profile. If "not linkedin" is ground for deletion, than this article needs to go. I did learn some interesting things. She was the General Manager of Life Savers from 1991-1992, after having been VP of Marketing there. At the time Life Savers was owned by RJR Nabisco. From 1993-1994 she lists herself as having been a consultant with Nabisco. There is this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/whitneyjohnson/2016/07/18/cheryl-bachelder-cooking-up-success-with-failure-louisiana-style/#73c8514470b4 from Forbes that admits that Bachelder did poorly at KFC, but tries to downplay that by putting it in quotes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a discussion about how well Batchelder did her job. If you have reliable sources that say she did poorly, add those to the article. The question here is whether or not Batchelder is notable enough to merit a biography on Wikipedia. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that is only one question of many that can go into deletion.
    WP:DEL14). Johnpacklambert is, from what I can tell, arguing that she is not notable because the coverage is simply run of the mill. He can correct me if I am wrong in my reading. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously it does not violate #1 (since speedy deletion has been declined). We're here to discuss whether #13 (as quoted above) is applicable, so that's out too. #4 cites "advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" (bolding mine), which is patently not the case here. So your argument is specious. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a bad G11 decline in my opinion and the opinion of others above, so that is up for discussion, which means DEL1 could apply. DEL4 certainly applies here. DEL14 links to
        WP:NOTSPAM, something that is much more broad than DEL4 and has been used as rationale for deletion even if the language is neutral, which is patently not the case here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Did you notice the caveat at the beginning of that list? It says "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". In other words, if you think the article is overly promotional, make it less promotional instead of deleting it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus exists between sides.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Keep the person is likely notable, but the article has serious issues. I think I've improved it enough (and reverted a blatantly promotional version of
talk) 19:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC))[reply
]

Keep The G11 was refused. The Prod was refused. And now the AFD will be refused as the subject is clearly notable and
What I tell you three times is true. Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. The promotional language has been toned down some, but could still be converted to a more encyclopedic tone in places; however, it's not so blatantly promotional as to require deletion. Passes the
^talk 06:50, 21 August 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. Nakon 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over Top

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

Ironically the only 2 significant mentions I can find is Nintendo Life asking for it to come to Virtual Console in 2008 and then giving it a poor review in 2017 when they finally brought it to Virtual Console. Besides that there aren't any other significant mentions, so it fails

WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Nakon 23:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as
WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. fails
WP:NVG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 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.

SphereFACE

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

Sources used on the article are mostly rather dubious, either primary sources or tiny unknown websites. The ones that are reliable are very brief. It doesn't appear to meet

WP:GNG on closer inspection. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refbomb'ed to look like something, but not covered in-depth by
WP:VG/RS (see custom Google search engine). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Cannot find multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as
WP:PROMO for Kickstarter purposes. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:04, 14 August 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.

Help! 01:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

List of Indonesian football transfers 2017

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

Deprodded without improvement, rationale was "fix it then. Deletion is not cleanup". While the sentiment is correct, it failed to address the concern for deletion which was "Uncited article, delete as per

WP:NOTSTATS". So now we're here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be a lot of such lists in
talk) 20:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

And, well

WP:NOTSTATS. What makes this particular list of these particular trades notable? Oh yeah, that would be... nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

NOTSTATS doesn't actually apply here because this is a list of transfers, not a list of statistics. With that argument not applicable, what makes these not notable?

talk) 00:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep - there are plenty of coverage and sources regarding this topic online (yes mostly in Indonesian but that is understandable). Deletion is not clean up and I've started adding citations. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only is deletion not cleanup, but NOTSTATS doesn't even apply here - this isn't a list of statistics, it's a list of transfers, which are completely different. (Note: I'm the one who removed the PROD template)
talk) 00:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, actually, no it's not.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and no one has yet to explain why this list does not fall under that guideline.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

It's a list of all Indonesian football transfers from this year. That is a very well-defined set and is in no way indiscriminate.

talk) 03:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

To elaborate further, here is the full text of INDISCRIMINATE:

Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article United States presidential election, 2012 have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012).

"Unexplained statistics". Not only is the list not of statistics but instead of events, proper context is given to the items of the list.

Done

"Accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability". The article does this.

Done

"Articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context". There certainly should be more than one sentence of context, but that's not a deletion issue, that's a "fix it" issue. Anyway, the bare minimum is established and should be improved upon.

In progress (I would do this myself, except that I know almost nothing about football and would be likely to make a factual mistake)

"Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article." This is exactly what this article does. To avoid the main article on Liga 1 being clogged with lengthy lists of transfers, the lists are instead located on this separate page.

Done

I'm really not sure what you're seeing here. And once again, you're completely ignoring the fact that this page lists events, not statistics.

talk) 04:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

CJK09, in the future, please don't use label templates to illustrate your points at Afd, as proscribed at

talk) 11:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep - meets
WP:LISTN, plenty of coverage of transfers in Indonesian football in local language sources. Fenix down (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - standard list; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 07:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Muntazir

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

Promotional stuff. No mention in

WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple refs [14] and the U.S. sanctions against him seem significant. Mar4d (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being mentioned in multiple refs is not enough. Muntazir is an academic, but he meets no criteria for notability of an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gets significant mentions by the BBC, NYT and The Guardian too, as well as in several books ([15], [16]). The U.S. Treasury lists him among "eight individuals who hold leadership positions within the designated foreign terrorist organization, Lashkar-e Tayyiba". A leadership position within Lashkar-e-Taiba (actually playing a key role in their communication and recruiting strategy) appears quite notable. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per IP and additionally, The Hindu. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 02:05, 17 August 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Matthew Boyle

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

Fails GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. If he was executive editor, that probably wouldn't be the case, but it seems he isn't much more than a run-of-the-mill right wing political commentator, without much other than his title at Breitbart keeping this piece from a CSD. South Nashua (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 16 August 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. Clearly notable, otherwise no vaild reason to delete and therefore closing per

(non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Kanta Gupta

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

Non-notable professor. The fact that she died around a year and half ago and a date of death on Wikipedia was not posted until today shows the failure of this article's existence. Also there is very sources about this professor. All them seem to be from Winnipeg and none of them seem to show even local importance. For example none of the local newspaper (other than an empty obituary) even show this professor passed away. --Luigi Waluigi (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. FRSC is a clear pass of
WP:PROF, the appropriate notability guideline (not GNG) for this sort of case. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- appears to meet PROF as distinguished professor and recipient of the Krieger–Nelson Prize. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clear pass of
WP:GNG based on the sources already present in the article. An article not being up-to-date is not a valid rationale for deletion. – Joe (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep - There are tags for instances where articles need to be updated. It is a part of mainting the encyclopedia but is by no means a reason to delete an article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:27, 13 August 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Rowdy Johnson Band

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

Fails

Dammitkevin (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant vanity page lacking significant, independent third party sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:06, 13 August 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. So Why 07:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alper Solak

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

Fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:NHOCKEY like all the Turkish hockey player articles that have appeared here lately. Deadman137 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 18 August 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. So Why 07:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Harvey (ice hockey)

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

Fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable player who has only competed in lower-tier professional leagues. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails
WP:NHOCKEY LibStar (talk) 07:21, 19 August 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.

Help! 01:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Anjali Thakker

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

Fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fails

talk) 03:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep meets

WP:GNG with coverage in all major NZ newspapers as well as European papers, including Sweden's largest paper Aftonbladet. All time most decorated NZ ice and inline hockey player. setti21 (talk

) 15:40, 16 August 2017

Keep meets

WP:GNG with coverage in all major NZ newspapers as well as European newspapers. boltasaurus (talk

) 00:11, 18 August 2017

Keep per
WP:NHOCKEY #1 though its affiliated essay looks like it needs to be updated with women's leagues. Hmlarson (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
WP:NHOCKEY/LA needs updating, but in any case the subject passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:04, 18 August 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Yusuf Halil

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

Fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
brief routine mentions. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 18 August 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) 08:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betül Kahraman

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

Fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passing NHOCKEY is not relevant here. She passes
Haberler. --LauraHale (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
WP:NHOCKEY is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Despite the claims that there are numerous sources for this player,
WP:ROUTINE coverage of a game where she is listed as a team member. 7 is more routine game coverage where she is only mentioned because it was her 17th birthday. 8 and 9 is more routine game coverage where she scored a point. 10 is about the team, she is mentioned in passing. 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 are all ended with lists of the members of the team, of which she was one. 23 lists her as a trainer. Which one of these articles merits GNG? Yosemiter (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per Yosemiter, to whom I'm grateful for doing the legwork on a couple of these AfDs so that I don't have to do so. I remain dismayed that LauraHale and Smartyllama are pulling knee-jerk Keeps on these Turkish women's hockey articles without coming up with a single cite that meets the GNG's requirements, and are notably silent when asked to identify specific cites they claim do. Ravenswing 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a member of the Turkey women's national ice hockey team. Victuallers (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... which satisfies no notability criteria; NHOCKEY does not, nor ever has, confer presumptive notability to people who simply have belonged to national teams. Would you like to advocate a legitimate criterion to keep? Ravenswing 14:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. She plays for
WP:NHOCKEY point 2. Narky Blert (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment @Narky Blert: please re-read NHOCKEY again, nowhere does it ever mention highest league in a country. There is nothing preventing her ("lack of access") from playing in higher leagues. But even then, women's leagues have not yet proven to have inherently pre-established notability, unless they have played in the top level IIHF tournament or the Olympics. So she must pass GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: Do you think she should emigrate? Narky Blert (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

list of known GNG leagues for player notability). #2 specifically refers to a time when players could not play for a professional or higher level league at all, primarily when there were no professional leagues anywhere (pre-NHL) and Eastern Bloc "amateur" leagues (they were amateur by strict definition only because the government prevented them from being professional or emigrating). In this case, there is nothing barring from emigrating if she really wanted to try to make a NWHL team (which also has no inherent notability for players). But since NHOCKEY does not really apply to women's leagues, then GNG is the only applicable guideline and you can read my previous analysis of the sources found in the above comments. Yosemiter (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

@

WP:LAWYERING. Narky Blert (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

@Narky Blert: That seems a stretch as one of the primary authors of NHOCKEY is User:Ravenswing. Considering NHOCKEY is governed and written by the ice hockey wikiproject, do you think that we haven't done some research into it before making it a guideline? The hardest part about the guideline (which is still subject to GNG, even if a player meets the SNG, they can be deleted for not meeting the GNG) is the phrasing. How do you propose we write #2 with the intent of my above paragraph? (Feel free to comment at this discussion were we are currently looking at removing entirely.) Yosemiter (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not only tempted to suggest that you're making up your own idiosyncratic interpretation of what you want the criterion to say as opposed to what it really does say, I'm giving in to that temptation. As it happens, Yosemiter is right. I'm the author of the NHOCKEY criteria, and that's exactly what Criterion #2 was intended to address. Further, no level of women's hockey is supported by NHOCKEY, as has been stated exhaustively in many places and many discussions, for the unfortunate reason that nowhere in the world does any level of women's hockey receive enough coverage so as to presumptively declare every female hockey player notable. There is one exception, and one exception alone, which are women hockey players competing in the Olympic Games (that being covered under

WP:NOLYMPICS). Ravenswing 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

To back up Ravenswing and Yosemiter, both of whom spend an awful lot of time on the sport and checking into references, the critereon says nothing about "top level in a nation" at all. Perhaps other sport guidelines do, the hockey guideline is not here to be fair or represent equality, it is here to represent the expectation for notability. I don't understand how it could be wikilawyering for someone to try to explain what was misunderstood to you.

18abruce (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

I'd agree with you if that were the only criteria we were using. I'm saying that after we've exhausted English sourcing and still can't agree, that it's one more argument tipping the scales against notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
18abruce (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No English sources to show notability, and no article on the Turkish Wikipedia either. [[17]] Her career predated the Turkish ban so there should be something. There should be an article on her there first before she can be considered notable here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find the argument "if [one or another female hockey player in a Turkish semi-professional league] were notable, there would already be an article about her in the Turkish Wikipedia" compelling. New articles about notable topics are still being added to the English Wikipedia every day; not all of them are newly notable on the day their article goes live, either. The lack of an article is not ipso facto proof that one was proposed and rejected as lacking notability. —
^talk 20:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Another example of a player who meets none of the criteria at
WP:GNG are based solely on routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 22 August 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) 08:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kübra Dadaşoğlu

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

Fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes
Hurriyet, Sabah (newspaper) and others. While these may be in Turkish language, the repeated national level coverage gets her over the line. The article could probably use more attention from a Turkish speaking contributor to improve the article and the sourcing. This does not negate the notability based on national level coverage of her by major publications in Turkey. --LauraHale (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I am not seeing significant coverage per GNG, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Anything that is just a passing mention or game coverage is typically considered
WP:ROUTINE. Number 1 is a team roster. Number 2 is coverage of the Championship team going into details on the backgrounds the players who participated. Her only mention there is "Kubra Dadaşoğlu, who is the best goalkeeper in the Turkish Ice Hockey Federation Women's League, and Betul Toygar, who is the best forward player, stated that women in the first place in the East are not warmly interested in sports but they are appreciated by the success stories that extend to the championship" (more or less based on translation) and really only confirms that she was named Best Goaltender. Number 3 is a interview with what appears to be her entire team, she is quoted three times (two of which are one sentence responses) and lacks the depth of coverage needed for a GNG-worthy source as she is not the subject. Number 4 is the same article as Number 2. Number 5 mentions her as the best goaltender from the previous season. Number 6 is a brief article stating the team won the championship and the subject won best goaltender. Number 7, she is listed among other athletes invited to a training camp. Number 8, she is listed as a member if the team. Number 9 is a stats page. For a Turkish player, this coverage is better than most get. However, I am just not seeing significant depth needed for GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per Yosemiter, to whom I'm grateful for doing the legwork on a couple of these AfDs so that I don't have to do so. I remain dismayed that LauraHale and Smartyllama are pulling knee-jerk Keeps on these Turkish women's hockey articles without coming up with a single cite that meets the GNG's requirements, and are notably silent when asked to identify specific cites they claim do. I'm sympathetic to the travails of those who'd like to see more articles on women athletes (although men's hockey in Turkey's no more notable), and I'd like to be able to take LauraHale on faith when she claims to have found GNG-qualifying cites, but after seeing such antics on several of these AfDs, it's irresponsible to do so. Ravenswing 01:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with LauraHale based on ref like 1 Also agree that having an editor with Turkish language expertise would be helpful. Context is key. Hmlarson (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a longstanding criterion that quotes from a subject (especially in a large article full of quotes from several players) cannot be used to support the notability of a subject. I'm not sure what notability criteria is satisfied by "context," but assuredly neither the GNG nor NHOCKEY are. Ravenswing 05:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I covered that source already with "Number 3 is a interview with what appears to be her entire team, she is quoted three times (two of which are one sentence responses) and lacks the depth of coverage needed for a GNG-worthy source as she is not the subject." (The rough translation of the third is "Does not support the family and therefore has difficulties? - Kubra Dadaşoğlu: I am Ilıcalı. A district that is a bit backward from the point of view of the Ilıca. My parents were the people who put the sport back. Yeliz Yüksel, my teacher of this physical education teacher, brought me. A teacher accepted my family that I would be in. But my parents had a little trouble because our workouts were over at the end of the day. 14 kilometers between our home and the gym. It takes about 45 minutes by bus. We can not find a bus every hour." Enough of a translation to get the gist of the content and context.) @Hmlarson: care to explain how this is significant coverage? (Not to mention GNG needs multiple.) Yosemiter (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is sufficient enough considering context. You disagree, I hear you. Hmlarson (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No English sources to show notability, and no article on the Turkish Wikipedia either. [[18]] Her career also predated the Turkish ban so there should be something if she was considered notable in her own county. There should be an article on her there first before she can be considered notable here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find the argument "if [one or another female hockey player in a Turkish semi-professional league] were notable, there would already be an article about her in the Turkish Wikipedia" compelling. New articles about notable topics are still being added to the English Wikipedia every day; not all of them are newly notable on the day their article goes live, either. The lack of an article is not ipso facto proof that one was proposed and rejected as lacking notability. —
^talk 20:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd agree with you if that were the only criteria we were using. I'm saying that after we've exhausted English sourcing and still can't agree, that it's one more argument tipping the scales against notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet the subject-specific or general notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanay Günay

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

Fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NHOCKEY is not relevant. Subject passes
WP:GNG based on the strength of the sources from Turkish media, including mentions in several national publications. That these sources are in Turkish, not English, is irrelvant as the national prominence of them is relevant and there are several of them. The article could be improved with someone more familiar with the language adding more information based on these sources. --LauraHale (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: @
WP:ROUTINE, and the like -- and you are far too experienced an editor to be this unaware of the GNG's provisions, so what gives? Ravenswing 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I am not seeing GNG-worthy sources here, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Source 1 is interesting as it is about goalkeepers in general and talks to both the subject and the other goalkeeper, but the entire thing reads like
WP:ROUTINE coverage (of the "look at this odd sport and all the gear they wear" variety). #2 is broken or dead for me. #3 she is listed in a photo caption. #4 is a single sentence that says she won best goalkeeper. #5 is broken or dead, but upon finding what seems to be a reprint, it does not even mention her, just about the team winning the championship. #6 is routine game coverage of said championship, she is listed at the end of the article as a member of the team. #7 is more routine game coverage of a lower division IIHF game. #8 she is listed as a member of a team. #9 she is not mentioned at all, coverage of the national team in general. #10 is a stats sheet. #11 is a roster list. #12 she is mentioned in a list as a best goalkeeper winner. #13 is also a single sentence stating she won best goalkeeper. Other than #1 (which seems more like odd news/routine coverage of a local team than as significant coverage of the person), all are extremely brief mentions, lists or stats. None of those types of sources are enough to meet GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep this player plays for the national team and in the
Turkish Ice Hockey Women's League. Per NHOCKEY #2, a player is presumed notable if they "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of access to a top professional league, the highest level of competition extant;". It's not clear why there are no women's leagues at all listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. That should be updated. Hmlarson (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This has been explained to you more than once, and I can't help it
if you're not listening. Firstly, NHOCKEY does not, and never has, accorded presumptive notability to playing for a national team; Criterion #6 states "Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year." The Turkish women's team has never played for the World Championship.
Secondly -- and this has been explained to you as well -- Criterion #2 refers to two specific periods in hockey history: the 19th century pre-professional Canadian leagues, and the Cold War era where the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia required their players to play in domestic amateur-only leagues.
Finally -- and this likewise has been explained to you -- the reason that women's leagues aren't listed in NHOCKEY/LA is that nowhere in the world does women's hockey receive enough coverage to be able to declare every player who's ever played in such a league presumptively notable, and individual players must rise and fall with the GNG. Would you like to propound a valid ground upon which to keep? Ravenswing 05:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

National Women's Hockey League (NWHL): https://www.google.com/search?q=national+women%27s+hockey+league&newwindow=1&tbm=nws&ei=D3uWWbfdA4eN0wKguYzQDQ&start=10&sa=N&biw=913&bih=529&dpr=2 How do we go about updating the essay? Hmlarson (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

We don't. There is an enormous difference between a league being notable (which the NWHL unquestioningly is) and for a sports league to receive so much coverage that every single player can be considered to meet the GNG. That is an enormously high bar to reach, and there are hockey leagues that have existed for the better part of a century that don't meet that standard. The plain fact of the matter is that the only women's sports league in the world to gain that level of coverage is the WNBA. Ravenswing 05:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -fails GNG. There seems to be a lot of confusion here about number of references equalling significant coverage. It has been quite clearly demonstrated above that all sources noted contain trivial mentions or are simply rosters / stats. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources on the page, or in a google search pass
18abruce (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Sources provided don't demonstrate notability. I'm starting to feel like a broken record, and certainly don't have anything against women's hockey (I actually have attended college woman's hockey games) or Turkey (I loved visiting the country) but it's hard to make an argument that these players are notable when they are not even mentioned on the Turkish Wikipedia. Would we go to the Turkish Wikipedia and add an American sports figure that wasn't on the English Wikipedia? Since there has been a recent uptick in these articles and the same names voting for and against keeping, I think we need some policy, which I'll call WP:NOTXENO, that states if a foreign subject's notability is questioned due to poor English sourcing, as long as the subject's period of notability predates a ban (like the one facing the Turkish Wikipedia), and there's otherwise no evidence of state censorship preventing such an article, then before we add anything here there should first be an article on the foreign Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:27, 21 August 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

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Androtimus

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

Biography of a person notable only as the father of somebody else, single-sourced to a reference which is about his son. As always, notability is

not inherited -- a person doesn't get a standalone article just for having his name mentioned in a biography of a more notable relative. But there's neither a standalone claim of notability in his own right, nor any sourcing that's about him in his own right, present here. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To also consider redirecting/merging to Nearchus and to give someone with access to more sources to assess whether notability can be established
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. The sole "keep" vote is marginal and not supported by anyone else, which suggests consensus to delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nearchus, where he's mentioned.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. From looking through the sources not much is known about him beyond him being probably an important aristocrat supporter who came from Crete originally - other than that it is all about the son - so we have the historical greek text + later speculation (also very limited) on what he might have been. There's nothing useful in this article to merge (it's all already in Nearchus anyway).Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reason to keep a special article on him. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Nearchus. I doubt we will ever get any content except as to his son. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 19 August 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.

Camp Tyler

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

I can find no sources to indicate that this camp passes the

WP:GNG. In terms of news articles, I've only found a local source that's more about Paul Bunyan than Camp Tyler and a local blog

from an organization that gave a grant to the camp. Not GNG material.

There is a book that mentions Camp Tyler, but upon inspection, the book's information about Camp Tyler is almost 100% identical to our article, verbatim. The book was published in 2011, while our article was created in 2008, so I believe this is not a copyvio on our part but an unattributed Wikipedia import on theirs. Since the information is a copy of a Wikipedia article, it doesn't qualify as a GNG source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist

¹1 ¹ 17:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Delete Per GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it's possible that, with improvements, this article could meet
talk) 05:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
one of thousands of such camps. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Provisional keep~~. Using my newly granted newspaper.com access, I found a number of old newspapers talking about the subject, including describing it as the first of its kind. I request this discussion not to be closed until I had time to analyze the sources during my lunch break. Regards So Why 07:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, this is what I found: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] (incl. mentions in Michigan and Louisiana newspapers). Unfortunately, my lunch break is not nearly as long as I would have hoped so I can't provide more now but even based on this and the amount of hits (350+) I think this is sufficiently notable for inclusion, albeit barely, so weak keep. Regards So Why 12:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing to suggest that this camp is particularly notable when compared with others (
WP:MILL). Also, Premeditated Chaos, I'm also working on the Feb '09 backlog :) DrStrauss talk 16:36, 19 August 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Aspire Trust

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

Fails WP:NGO. No significant news coverage, no national or regional scope. May be out of business. Rogermx (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Rogermx (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 13 August 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Lilashah

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

My PROD was declined (properly) as the article had been sent to AfD under a different title, but that discussion 9 years ago closed as no consensus, and there is still no evidence of notability. He is mentioned in connection with

WP:NOTINHERITED. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 13 August 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

Naoto Saito

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

Fails

WP:NSKATE and GNG. His results: http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00007411.htm Hergilei (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply