Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 February	28 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Boyd (Tennessee public figure)

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

Major puff piece article, created by paid SPA account. Fails

WP:BIO. Information is all about his companies, nothing about the man. scope_creep (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. I remind the gentle reader that Wikimedia Foundation is a private charity. We are
not a free web host. In fact, like HI-Canada, we could lose our 501(c)(3) status if we continue to host crap like this guy's c.v. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NBIO. Some bits and pieces can be merged into other articles, but not too much. South Nashua (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:NPOLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Delete. Most of the Keep comments below either aren't based on showing that the subject meets our

notability guidelines or have been effectively rebutted. Consequently I have to give those reduced weight. Hut 8.5 22:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

South Front

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

)

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

PRODded, but this was removed without real explanation. Mdann52 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. No
significant, sources independent of the subject that address the subject in-depth. Neutrality^talk 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The PROD was deleted by Jd2718 because it was not even brought to discussion. Nobody should rush to delete articles without consensus. I've added two more sources that shouldn't be considered unreliable, anybody can put more if they find any. I also don't see why all of a sudden this has turned into a big deal, nobody paid much attention to it for almost a whole year, and now it needs to be deleted? With that logic, let's delete the articles for Russia Insider, Bellingcat, Voice of Russia, Kavkaz Center, and Ukraine Today, because they all contain unreliable sources. Sure, we've had discussions that led to a standstill, but has anybody really offered to improve the article until recently? SkoraPobeda (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two sources you added contributes to notability. This is a mere passing mention (not in-depth coverage) while this is a passing mention in an op-ed (again, not in-depth coverage). Neutrality^talk 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) The site showing up consistently in Google searches demonstrates its notability, (2) Google is an independent source and (3) Volunteer Marek's comments suggest POV. 114.77.12.93 (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin should disregard this comment. The test for notability is not "Google searches" (that's a notability fallacy); it's significant, in-depth coverage in independent sources. Wikipedia:Search engine test, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. As for the disparagement of Volunteer Marek, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arguments to the person. Neutrality^talk 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:ORG. After an exhaustive search, I couldn't find a single sources that gives in-depth coverage to this news organization. Stickee (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - In addition to Globalresearch and Thesaker.is, the reporting of SouthFront is as well regularly picked up by Almasdarnews [1] and SOTT.net [2] . SOTT.net is cited 28 times throughout Wikipedia and Almasdarnews.com 61 times, so I assume some relevance. Will editing the article in this way help - will adding of these sources make it relevant? 6583-GSBE (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but. Before I weigh in, a point. The PROD nomination and deletion (mine) are not relevant to this discussion. The comments about VM's rather obvious point of view are out of place here; we are not discussing his action. The nominator's implication that removing the PROD required a better explanation is also out of place - no explanation is required, and there was one, anyhow.

South Front is one of a number of quick-publish sites on crises areas - it appears that their main focus is Syria, but they also cover Yemen and Ukraine. South Front's POV is unmistakably pro-Russian government. This sort of site is relatively new, or has gained a relatively new prominence. This article https://medium.com/@d1gi/the-election2016-micro-propaganda-machine-383449cc1fba#.wd36umax1 (apologies for bare link) identifies Southfront as a unique node in a "micropropaganda network," (not "one of" but the top destination worldwide). In content, SF resembles a number of other sites, including Al-Masdar News (we have a stubby article) - though with the latter some of the personalities involved have identified themselves.

There's a problem here. By WP's notability guidelines, the SF article would only be notable if we had significant secondary sources, which we do not, or if such sources exist, but we have not yet identified them. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of the sourcing in the article. By one Supreme Court justice's pornography guideline I know it when I see it - South Front is notable.

Options? 1) Delete it. But that's deleting an article that should be notable. 2) Keep as is. That's at odds with WP policy. 3) Modify policy - not a chance, not unless/until this sort of website becomes a much bigger factor, and knowing that discussion of changes to core policy.... 4), and what I recommend, assume that the sourcing that makes this article notable exists, and admonish editors to work on providing it. Jd2718 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for every reason list in this article: http://thesaker.is/open-letter-concerning-wikipedia-suppression-of-southfront-information/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.184.80 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 96.235.184.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The closing admin should disregard this comment, from an IP who has made no other edits, because it fails to address actual policy considerations. 96.235.184.80, the fact that an organization wants a Wikipedia article doesn't mean they get one. The fact that they are actively campaigning for a Wikipedia article, again, is irrelevant to the determination of notability. All of the "reasons" that this group presents have nothing to do with Wikipedia's actual notability inquiry, which is: are there significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? The answer is no. Neutrality^talk 02:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per
open channel) 00:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete -- a promotional article on an unremarkable web site. Sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in the article, and searching Google News doesn't return any stories about this website or clearly drawing on it as a source of expertise. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo piece and no notability for stand alone article shown. Kierzek (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In 2014, the recently formed group attracted the attention of RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty which devoted a full article to it in connection with events in Donbass (see Pro-Russian Separatist Supporters Seek Western Support on Social Media, by Glenn Gates, RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, June 29, 2014). Together with Jessikka Aro's article The cyberspace war: propaganda and trolling as warfare tools (European View, June 2016, vol. 15, Issue 1) containing three paragraphs (25 lines) about SF, I feel the amount of coverage points to a degree of notability that is set to increase with time. Also worthy of notice is an article carried by The Manila Times about a video-clip "titled Current Escalations in the South China Sea, published by South Front Analysis and Intelligence through the website Tactical Clips.com." --Elnon (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It currently fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Salt (chemistry). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong salt

)

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

Very rarely used term. See [3] Tomásdearg92 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Salt (chemistry). Not much more than a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

See also related
talk) 18:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into Salt (chemistry). Strong and weak salts are not common terms used in chemistry, and the concept is best described in the context of the main article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Salt (chemistry). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak salt

)

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

Very rarely used term. See [4] Tomásdearg92 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Salt (chemistry). Not much more than a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clarityfiend's suggestion; after two useful edits in the past decade, it's bound to get the attention it needs as part of that major article. --pmj (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

See also related
talk) 18:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into Salt (chemistry). Strong and weak salts are not common terms used in chemistry, and the concept is best described in the context of the main article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as

(｡◕‿◕｡) 01:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Human Color System

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

Non-notable color system proposed by a makeup artist. Lacks significant coverage. A google search scares up few references to the term. reddogsix (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:30, 27 February 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. Sources presented here indicate that there is level of significant coverage in Russian-language sources on this club that goes beyond

routine match reporting. The inbedwithmaradona source in the article indicates that the club has received a degree of significant coverage in international media too, despite their lowly status. Not the most notable club by any stretch of the imagination, but GNG seems to be met from the four sources presented. Fenix down (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

FK Birobidzhan

)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was No indication this club meets

WP:FOOTYN. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has came third in Russian Amateur Football League, (2007).Das osmnezz (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself makes no such claim. As you wrote the article, you should reference this fact to an appropriate source before you can use it as a Keep argument. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is well referenced in the Russian version of the article ru:Биробиджан (футбольный клуб), also finished second in 1987. Nfitz (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays in the
WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I completely agree about bias. But it's useless to assert notability here in an AfD discussion, or to point to another Wikipedia. THIS article itself needs to self-evidently describe a notable team and at present it makes no such assertion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs work, no doubt about that. But that isn't grounds for deletion. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With a heavy heart, I am inclined to give a delete !vote here. I totally agree with the points of English-based
no original research, I must give a delete vote here. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@TheMagikCow: No sources anywhere online? What about what I listed above [6]- I'm seeing recent news articles. If I select all, I get 985 results. Not all prove notability, but I'm not sure why you are not getting any results. Nfitz (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I was searching in English only. Can you find anything to establish notability in Russian? TheMagikCow (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a good history of football in the area, and of the team, and I think meets

WP:GNG. This one is referenced in the article, and though a bit short, gives a brief history; as does this one referenced in the Russian wikipedia article for the team. Nfitz (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sources presented by Nfitz are sufficient to meet the (low) bar of notability for soccer clubs. Would not be deleted if it were a club in an English speaking country. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Creators aren't allowed to remove speedy deletion tags BTW. Hut 8.5 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivansson Nonprofit Research Institute

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

On the Talk page - according to the article's author, who claims to be the founder - "I founded my nonprofit research institute Today". May be a case of

WP:TOOSOON. Attempts to speedy, resulted in removal of tag. DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Nothing to show notability or even to verify the existence of this institute. I think the speedy tag should have been replaced and the article speedied, but now it's here... Sjö (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. I've tagged it with CSD; it was originally but it seems that it was removed by the page creator and someone else started this discussion. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Author's admission of its recent founding all but guarantees it's not notable. --Drm310 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MillionDallaCapo

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

My reading comprehension abilities may be failing me, but I can find no evidence in the cited source that this person had a Billboard Hot 100 number-one single as claimed in the article. Doesn't appear to meet

WP:NMUSIC. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It looks like an IP editor tried to change the Billboard Hot 100 mention to

WP:MUSICBIO. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete – The claim that the subject charted #1 on the
WP:MUSICBIO. Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per

talk, contribs) 02:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Einar Kuusk

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

No evidence of passing

talk, contribs) 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy keep that last AfD was closed less than two months ago. Furthermore, while that discussion may have been closed as no 'consensus', the arguments for keeping the article were much stronger than the arguments for deletion.
Lepricavark (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 19:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep - Sources exist - this is becoming an issue of competence now. @
WP:BEFORE - I've pointed it out to you already and you've ignored me. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note - There were sources identified in the 2nd AfD discussion (here, here, and here) so it's very odd that this new AfD discussion was started. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator withdrew his nomination here, noting that he would renom in a couple of months. He self-reverted several minutes later.
Lepricavark (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm changing my mind again, I'll withdraw this AfD.
talk, contribs) 02:24, 28 February 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 Farrah (band). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jez Ashurst

)

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

Unsourced stub for over a year. Searches do not return any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Does not pass

inherit notability from other works. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to
I would have done without going to AfD. Closing admin, please let's move onto more important and difficult tasks. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily cournoyer

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

Subject of this BLP fails

WP:NGOLF. Absent meeting the NGOLF criteria would need to be judged by GNG. Not sufficient sources either in article, or based on offline search, to establish general notability. (Note that there is a link in the article to a LPGA player bio, however, this appears to be an aspirational vision board-type link as it is to someone other than this individual who does not appear to be a LPGA pro.) Also, need a RS establishing she was a professional dancer at 2 years old. Based on the username of the page's author, the birth date of the BLP, and the fact there is a "thank you" shout-out to the BLP's father mid-article, this may be an autobiography. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Fails NGOLF and GNG as noted. The references are completely false. As noted above, the LPGA link goes to someone else entirely. A search on the LPGA site for the subjects name garners zero hits, the reference for her player profile takes you to a website that sells email addresses, and the Pantemonium link says nothing about sponsoring her let alone that she is also sponserod by " Joy Joy Watches , Putter Buddy, AND Much more". There may very well be a time when the subject meets NGOLF but that day isn't today. Justeditingtoday (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my comments above are based on an earlier version of the article. The author has removed the bulk of the references now. Considering a google search garnered a Go Fund Me to help Cournoyer make it to the LPGA, I don't think this will meet NGOLF any time soon. Justeditingtoday (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or speedy as hoax: It appears highly likely that this is at best an aspirational autobiography, so to speak. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong delete per nom. She wants to join the LPGA, but hasn't even made it to even a subsidiary tour. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic J. Arcuri

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

Article creator contested PROD. This is a civil servant/security official who does not meet

WP:NPOL, or WPNAUTHOR. The excessive extternal links as well as links to blurb descriptions of his books raise promotional concerns as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Article reads like a resume. Was created by an account calling itself
problem solving 21:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete poorly sourced, paltry PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page for a footnote individual.RudyLucius (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet
WP:PROMO --Jack Frost (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No significant. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Texas Longhorns football games

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

This "list of the greatest games in the history of the Texas Longhorns football program" has multiple issues, including:

Unclear inclusion criteria: The single source is a dead link, but I recovered it from the Internet Archive here. According to the source, "In honor of the Centennial Year of Texas Football, a Blue Ribbon committee met in the summer of 1992 to select great games and moments in Texas Football history. These were their selections. (Additional games from 1992-present have been added to the list.)". The composition of the Blue Ribbon committee is unclear, as is the procedure by which post-1992 games were selected. Additionally, it does not appear that there is a 1:1 relationship between the entries in the source and the article, meaning that some other editorial filter was applied to the article that may constitute
original research
.
Close paraphrasing: It appears several entries are closely paraphrased from the sole source. For example, the very first entry in the list: "Texas' very first football game was an astounding upset victory. The varsity team sent a band of 15 players to face the 'Champions of Texas' Dallas Football Club, a team that had been undefeated for several years. The game ended with an 18-16 upset victory for Texas. From there, Texas went undefeated in its first season of football." Source: "Texas' very first football game was an astounding upset, as the varsity sent a band of 15 or 16 players (the exact number was not recorded) north to face the 'Champions of Texas' Dallas Foot Ball Club. The Dallas team, which had been undefeated for several years and unscored on for quite some time as well, fell to the boys from Texas, 18-16. The Thanksgiving Day battle was witnessed by nearly 2,000 fans, the largest crowd to see a Dallas game up to that time.'
Unencyclopedic tone: Probably because the article is solely sourced to an internal University of Texas website, the entire text is very pro-Texas, to the point where adherence to
WP:NPOV
is questionable.

Due to all of the above issues, I recommend deleting the list and starting over. –Grondemar 17:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom and/or merge appropriate contents into History of Texas Longhorns football. Lizard (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as
WP:NOTMIRROR. Alternatively the list would constitute original research. Ajf773 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete articles of individual seasons for the team work just fine for what this article is trying to do. South Nashua (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. It could work if we change the inclusion criteria, per
WP:CLT. Category:Texas Longhorns football games (and its subcategory Category:Texas Longhorns football bowl games) contain a respectable amount of articles, so changing it to a neutral list of notable Texas games (which we have articles on) perhaps in table format could work. That said, it's probably more work than it's worth, and would probably descend back into the current mess sooner or later. (Also noting that because of the copyvio, the suggestion to delete and then start over is sound.) ansh 666 02:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep lists are useful for navigation and research. If we delete the list here, the information would be included on the main page which would just make that article more clumsy and cumbersome. As a separate list, it's easier to maintain.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: How is this article any more useful for navigation or research purposes than List of historically significant Michigan Wolverines football games, an article that you successfully nominated for deletion back in 2011? (I thought the Michigan list was pretty solid, but it got shot down.) Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the difference is in the title - the Michigan one contains "historically significant" while this one makes no such distinction. As such this list does not make pretensions of being a compilation of all "historically significant" Texas games, notable or not, but can be focused into a list of, say, all Texas games which are notable (i.e. all that have articles), which is what I suggest above. It's more or less a

WP:LISTN argument. ansh 666 03:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

That was about six years ago--without revisiting the original article, I guess I would say that I probably have changed my mind through the course of 6 years discussion on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: I'd agree that in theory a list of games would be useful for navigation and research. The problem is this list is not useful for navigation since it is mostly unwikified (possibly because of close paraphrasing / copyvio?), and of minimal value for research as it cites only one source. It's also hard to say the list is "easier to maintain" when it doesn't appear the list has been updated since 2009. –Grondemar 00:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio would be an issue, I'll be neutral on that for now. If it's there, then delete. Otherwise, what you mention are editing issues and not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Purtle

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Numerous references in the article but they are either unreliable, brief mentions, quotes, etc. There is one from Forbes [7] but written by a contributor and not staff. The Forbes piece also focuses on the business with him providing insight, not a piece that focuses on him in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. This has all the hallmarks of sockfarm spam. An article built from a whole lot of nothing. Lacks any depth of coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant self promotion. Created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per
WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. And

salted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Agustin Radagast

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

This page has been deleted at least twice (that I know of) in the last month. Highly promotional. At this point please delete and though I rarely ask for this, I believe salting is in order. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Salt and delete. Entirely promotional.104.163.152.194 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the sources is the subjects own website, which is not a workable source towards GNG. The other source does not look like a reliable source based on my knowledge of Spanish, but even if it actually is despite apparances, it is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo.Is G4 applicable? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi L3X1 - I don't believe G4 is applicable, since it was speedied twice before. My interpretation of G4 is that it was deleted at AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Onel5969 Thanks for explaining, I'm in the process of learning about CSD.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatantly
WP:ENT. Again... --Jack Frost (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Blatant
WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, as no longer needed. Article speedy-deleted twice. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok

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

This was created as a POV fork by a SPA as part of a series of edits about Providence (religious movement), a controversial religious group in which three articles were created in a user sandbox: this POV fork, here, a mostly positive "main" bio, and here on the movement, which were then copied into mainspace. The article about the group has been subject to an ANI threads about its promotional nature (which was discussed in the popular media) - see threads here and here. This is more disruption. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Background: Providence related articles are often subject to white washing by Single Purpose Accounts. Several of these accounts are now banned.

See:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the article itself. Let's scan some sources. The source "http://jmsprovidence.com" is used heavily throughout the article. This is a Providence self-published website and not reliable as a source. I would request review of the other sources as well as many are in Korean, and I am not sure how to read them or analyze them. The title of the article is strange. "Media allegations" is weird to include. If he was charged and convicted, then it doesn't matter what the media alledged. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied the source jmsprovidence.com. It is a CGM self published website, but it links to various news articles published by various news sources. What jmsprovidence sought to do is to translate these sources, and put them in a logical fashion for non-korean readers to understand. It also compiled hardcopy sources of some news articles (in its original scanned copy), where it is no longer available on the internet. I agree that we should not cite anything directly from commentary from jmsprovidence.com, but the article cites directly from the news sources themselves. How else would you like to provide the Korean translations? (I put them under the quotes. Feel free to verify them one by one) I verified those translations against native korean readers, as well as google translate and naver korean to english dictionary (i do know some korean myself). That is what you can do as well, find a korean friend or use google translate (although that does have errors). User:Sawol, will you be able to help verify the korean or find any korean editors who are able to? Avataron (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I included "Media allegations" into this article, because Jung actually won a lawsuit against the original 1999 media allegations, but this happened after he was convicted. So it was a possible case of Media allegations that led to him being convicted, therefore it is important to delineate the difference. Moreover, AFTER Jung was convicted, there were more media allegations against him in 2010-2012 which resulted in charges were dropped against Jung because there was no evidence. And in 2013, another set of media allegations were quashed by the Justice Minister. And in 2014, SBS made media allegations against Jung which did not result in charges. It is important to make the distinction between the process of Media allegations, charges, and conviction for these reasons. For discussion please. Avataron (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Avataron (talk) is accurate in his/her description of the sources used. For example, although http://jmsprovidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/201204_Newsmaker-_Why_is_the_CGM_back_in_the_spotlight.pdf is used, the original article is scanned at http://jmsprovidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Newsmaker-April-2012.compressed.pdf While many users in the en.wikipedia may not know korean, Avataron (talk) has attempted to put english translation of the cited sources. @Cjwon348 and Oil0518:, as qualified ko-en translators, will you be able to help verify the cited quotations from the Korean sources in this article? Many thanks. Phoenix0316 (talk!) 04:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Phoenix0316 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

!Vote Keep. While I acknowledge the history of edit warring, whitewashing, etc on the
AfD. — Avataron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

this is an AfD. Please !vote to delete or keep and state your reason under the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above to give context to this article. This is part of a long term pattern of behavior. There is a long history of SPA's coming in and whitewashing Providence related articles, and using questionable sources or sources tied to Providence themselves. This is within this pattern. For the article itself, I don't see the great need for it. It looks to be a POV fork with the purpose of minimizing the negative information in the Providence articles, moving it to a new article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a long term pattern of behavior. However, perhaps it is time to consider that the behavior was due to the existing article has not been providing alternate perspectives of the issue, because it is predominantly negative about Providence, as you have acknowledged. It is the ironclad rule for WP:NPOV to allow all perspectives to be expressed proportionately. Therefore, this article should not be hastily classified under the white-washing attempts just because I, as the article writer, am a Near SPA. Look at the substance of the article. Look at the substance of the sources cited. Are they fair? Do they present all sides fairly? Do they discuss an issue that warrants a page on its own? That SHOULD be the guide to whether this article is kept or deleted. Avataron (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update, more disruption still. The article was marked for speedy deletion as a copyright violation by Diannaa, one of our most experienced admins with regard to copyright, and I deleted it. Avataron complained on my page about the deletion, stating that they had edited the article to remove the copyright vios, but just three minutes later, without waiting for a response, recreated the article under a slightly different name, Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok. It's hard to believe that action was performed in good faith. I've tried to investigate their complaint, but it's very difficult to take stock of the changes they made to try to address the copyvio, since they were made in 13 small edits, and the "View deleted pages" functionality doesn't allow me to add them up. There's relevant discussion on the deleted Talk:Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok, which admins can see. I don't know what to do about this latest version of the article, or about this user who creates so much work for others. I've blocked them for 48 hours to slow them down. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It's an unusual scenario, I've never seen a similar situation, and I doubt we have a guideline or an essay about it. If it was my nomination, I'd boldly
WP:BUNDLE Media Allegations, Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok in here, and take it from there. Jytdog, what do you think? Sam Sailor 15:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Yep, bundling it here makes sense. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've listed Media allegations, charges, and conviction of Jung Myung Seok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) at the top as the recreated title. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So can someone explain why we need this huger article, and this cannot be covered in the page about this person?Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The latest version was speedily deleted as an attack page (G10). St Anselm (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the pages are deleted, then this page can be closed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Schenker

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

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

None of the sources provided are independent of the subject. This seems like a promotional peacock article. fails

WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong keep article in question clearly passes
WP:GNG as subject of article has been covered by media which is reliable, provides assumption and independent of subject. I do worry about this nomination, it is as if nominator of article is biased or does not have proper knowledge of Wikipedia laws and polices. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete in its present form. For an article of this length, there are quite a few references - but look closer. Most of them are by the subject, or about them. A list of articles that the subject wrote, a list of books by the subject on Amazon, a linkedin page, links to events at which the subject spoke... None of these show that the subject is notable under our rules. They prove that the subject exists - which is good, certainly for them. But that doesn't mean they're notable. If the subject has been covered in media, links to those articles would be lovely - as none are present in the article as it stands. There is one link to a Bloomberg article, but that doesn't really do anything either since - wait for it - the subject writes for Bloomberg. If we're to keep this article, then we need to have more information from reliable and independent sources. I don't see anything like that so far. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete, obvious vanity page RudyLucius (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The person is clearly notable as one of the world leaders in his field. More independent sources have been added that he has been covered in. NawfalPatel (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has been quoted in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal multiple times. He is a notable person. A quick google search of his name shows that he is one of the top economics forecasters in the world. The article passes wikipedias rules and should stay published. Texaslonghorn2015 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above account was blocked as a sock of NawfalPatel at SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I vote delete if only because
WP:NOT. I agree with Versace1608 ... vanity account. Whoever reviews this, please favor votes from real editors! Jeff Quinn (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment As the nominator I'd just like to point out that the only other keep vote is from a User who created an article that was nominated for deletion and I !voted to delete. Within a few minutes of a comment here that I left on the discussion page they then undid a speedy that I had added (that was subsequently speedily deleted), accused me of being offensive to another user (someone with whom in reality I am working with) and made a strong keep on this article and insinuated that I was biased and/or ignorant of "laws" (sic) and policies. Domdeparis (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I am seeing a lot of quotes by the subject, but nothing much in detail - what the subject achieved and what made them notable. The votes by the SPA make me wonder if the intention is to promote. At this point, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure)CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Volodymyr Ostapchuk

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

May not meet the notability standards, and article has no refs whatsoever TJH2018 talk 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting the world biggest music event is quite important, I guess. References are in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 page. EricLewan talk 18:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The sole fact that he's hosting the Eurovision makes him relevant enough. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy keep: Being a host of the Eurovision Song Contest, watched by over 200 million worldwide, has warranted notability for all the other hosts in the past. I see no reason why the rules would be indifferent in this case, unless of course there is reason to believe this person is no longer a host of the contest?
Talk 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep - Per
WP:GNG. Being host of ESC is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, notable as ESC host.RudyLucius (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He does seem to meet the notability criteria for
WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshi wo Miru Hito

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

Article was previously redirected to its developer for lack of adequate sourcing, but the developer (

?), which is to say that we don't have enough reliably sourced information to write a full article on the topic. czar 16:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. I cannot find much coverage in Japanese sources either besides a few "the soundtrack will be released on [date]" types of articles. I imagine that if it has been covered, it's in print magazines, although it doesn't seem to have been reviewed by Famitsu (judging from its entry in their database).--
talk 09:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I don't have access to many sources which would be likely to cover a 1980s Japan-only video game, regardless of notability, but the simple lack of any claim of importance says enough for me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mills

)

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

Non-notable person.

WP:GNG requires. Article tagged for notability concerns since December 2008. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per
WP:SPAM. South Nashua (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom
WP:GNG. Being a CEO of a company (Nasdaq listed and multi-million market-cap or not) doesn't confer inherent/automatic notability under NBIO. And GNG/SIGCOV doesn't seem to be met (what coverage there is seems to be more about the company and therefore not specifically about the subject here). Guliolopez (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - non-notable Busines person.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forces Gateway

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

Does not meet

WP:NWEB. Non-notable UK Government site, tagged for notability for over 9 years. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Query. Is this an alternative name for what is now called Defence Gateway, explained here? --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, there's no information that confirms this though. If it is, that other website doesn't meet

WP:NWEB either. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, not notable in present presentation for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:V; no sources present in the article to confirm that the subject indeed exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Adding source found by AlessandroTiandelli333 to the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Euromasters

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

Non-notable band/music group that does not meet

WP:BEFORE search provides no Significant coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources that the GNG requires. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm from the Netherlands and I like to mention that these guys are pretty notable in the "hardcore-scene". The track Alles naar de kloote was a signature-track that made the public pay attention to this (then new) kind of music. If I may say so, it would be a loss if it was deleted. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires that the subjects of its articles meet the

General Notability Guideline. Do you have any evidence that Euromasters meets these requirements? If not, there's no justification for keeping the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Even the Dutch Wikipedia does not provide any sources and I'm bounded by a white-list so I'm unable to add any of my one... They made more than one single though:

Amsterdam Waar Lech Dat Dan?
Alles Naar De Klote!!!
Neuken In De Keuken (Noiken In De Koiken)
Oranje Boven
A Message From Hell
Rotterdam Ech Wel
Everybody Clap Your Hands

If this helps. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sources are needed - Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable - I spent time searching for information before starting this discussion and nothing I found meets the requirements that I've pointed out to you. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets deleted, too bad... I guess it's notable enough for the Dutch Wiki but not necessarily for the international English one. If it goes, I'll understand, so be it. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the fact that articles exist in another language Wikipedia isn't reason enough to keep an article on the English-language Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I just say that? No offence... Oxygene7-13 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't, and I thought it was worth emphasising. Please can you take care that your edits don't completely destroy the formatting of the discussion in future? Thanks Exemplo347 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to pass
WP:BAND, spent 4 weeks in the top 40 hits in Holland per [8], even though I couldn't find anything of anything in English. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Vij

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

Google search does not turn up independent references to this surgeon. (Two people turn up, a surgeon and a dentist. This is the surgeon.) It does turn up a lot of "vanity" hits on this surgeon. If the promotional

peacock stuff were trimmed out of this article, not much would be left. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk|c|em) 15:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk|c|em) 15:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep As much as new articles which may not meet Wikipedia standards are deleted, we also forget that as an editor, deletion of articles is considered a final resort, that Is, when all maintenance tags placed on articles are left unaddressed, in this case, none until today, have been issued. I say the editor and article be given time to develop as we do not want to scare away new potential editors.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a stub but a multi-paragraph article, and the author does not, in my opinion, need time to develop it further. However, if the author wants time to develop it further so as to pass notability, they may move it to user space or draft space, or request that someone else move it to user space or draft space. If the author requests that I move it to draft space, I will move it to draft space, and will withdraw this AFD (since this is a notability AFD and AFD does not apply in draft space). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing
WP:GNG. The article is totally unreferenced, especially for all of the listed awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: The subject fails
WP:GNG. An online search of the subject doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communication, Culture & Technology Program

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

This was originally PROD'd for other reasons, but one of which I believe still applies:

Per WP:OUTCOMES, individual study programs at notable universities are not themselves notable unless they have been the subject of significant coverage independent of the university.

This is still the case. The sources are not sufficiently independent of the subject or primarilly third party. The only sources given are either

^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, borderline
G11. Cabayi (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Cuff (optician)

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

Non-notable instrument-maker. Winged Blades^Godric 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Clearly notable: has entry in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and his instruments are held in several major collections (not just in Florence!). I've upgraded the article. PamD 21:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. In addition to the (inaccessible to me) Oxford Dictionary, various museums and institutions provide information about him, which I've used to expand the article. Clarityfiend (talk)

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 10:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Del Buono

)

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

Non-notable instrument maker. Winged Blades^Godric 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - meets GNG (I've made some additions), note that his name is often given as "Paul del Buono". Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:54, 28 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 10:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo della Volpaia

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

Non-notable clock-maker. Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: did the nominator do a
WP:BEFORE search? Admittedly there are a load of absolutely pathetic little stubs which have been created based on this one museum in Florence by a "Wikipedian in Residence" who appeared not to have much clue how to contribute to an international encyclopedia, but this one is salvageable. Have added a couple of refs and an image. PamD 21:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - meets GNG based on improvements by PamD. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (

talk) 20:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Alyson Oldoini

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

Does not meet

biographic notability with independent references. Google search turns up advertisements for her perfumes. This draft reads like yet another advertisement for her perfumes. Removing promotional language wouldn't leave much. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

concur In its current state I would say it's liable for CSD-G11 and PRODBLP. Kleuske (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Deleted as
G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vittorio Crosten

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

Non-notable craftsman. Winged Blades^Godric 13:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excelled in the carving of various artifacts including picture frames and scientific and musical instruments. His various works are covered in numerous sources in English and there will be more to find in Italian and Dutch. Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Sources???Winged Blades^Godric 16:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep if he was notable back in his own day, he is still notable now. If you want to find sources, try clicking on one of the links in the "Find sources" column.
Lepricavark (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, I fail to find a single of your so-called sources discussing the subject non-trivially.Existence≠Notability.Winged Blades^Godric 16:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's your interpretation. I refuse to believe than a non-notable carver from several hundred years ago would have obtained so many "trivial" mentions. Non-notable people tend to be forgotten after a few hundred years have gone by.

Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Notability is a guideline rather than a policy because there is no exact threshold. In practise, many reference works have brief entries for people of this sort and there is no requirement for us to have some specific amount of information. As a lower bar for this sort of topic, my favourite example is
Chitty (cricketer). If he gets in then we should certainly have people like Crosten too. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - In my opinion meets GNG; also meets
WP:CREATIVE #4 as his mounts and frames support works in major galleries and are, themselves, the subject of discussion (for example, https://books.google.com/books?id=GLC0tGVCOPEC&pg=PA92&dq=%22Vittorio+Crosten%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU8-ns37DSAhWISCYKHc_lB3QQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22Vittorio%20Crosten%22&f=false). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of counsel appearing in Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

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

Non-notable list. Fairly arbitrary selection of lawyers appearing in a court (and one that does not as I understand it have jurisdiction in Canada any more). Can't see any coverage of lists of Canadian counsel appearing in JCPC as a particular grouping otherwise than on wikipedia. Has been tagged for fixing for a few years with no improvement. Harris (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 13:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. This belongs with the one-eyed Montanan horse thieves. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 28 February 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 Deleted as a copyright violation RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jurong West Bus Package

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

As per

WP:NOTDIRECTORY Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nightfury 13:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the heads up

Nordic Nightfury - if it gets speedily deleted, I'll withdraw the nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giovan Battista Verle

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

Failed to find any reliable reference that states the notability of the subject or his imp. in the field. Winged Blades^Godric 13:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no trouble finding an English language source – Simulation in Healthcare Education – and there seems to be plenty more in the Italian language. The topic should be kept for improvement per our
editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment---Err... I am not saying that this person is non-existent.I am just saying he is non-notable.In case you got me wrong, as it seems from the above argument.Winged Blades^Godric 13:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The American Journal of Ophthalmology described him as a "famous ivory turner ... and anatomist of the human eye". Notice the word "famous". Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the misrepresentation of Andrew's rationale above, it is quite clear that Andrew was arguing for the notability of the subject. It would appear that the American Journal of Ophthalmology would also !vote keep, if it had an account.
Lepricavark (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I am having troubles finding the AJO link.Can any of you please provide the link?Thanks!Winged Blades^Godric 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the full AJO ref is: Messenger, Harry K. "Giovanni battista verle, venetian: famous ivory turner in the service of Cosimo III grand duke of Tuscany, and anatomist of the human eye." American Journal of Ophthalmology 25, no. 7 (1942), according to google scholar. I can't go over to the library right now, but that is pretty convincing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Slater and Rhyno

)

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

Previously deleted for not meeting

WP:ROUTINE match results, not significant independent coverage. Individuals are notable, but the team is not (at least not yet). Nikki♥311 12:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 12:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this on the main talk page: According to Nikki 311's reasoning which is and I quote, "Individuals are notable, but the team is not (at least not yet)". Uh....ok. If Heath Slater and Rhyno aren't "notable" then why the world does The Ascension, The Vaudevillains, etc. have their own page and it doesn't get "nominated for deletion". Now I know that The Ascension and The Vaudevillains were Tag Team Champions just like Heath Slater and Rhyno, but there is a difference. A BIG DIFFERENCE...The Vaudevillains and The Ascension were NXT Champions, while Heath Slater and Rhyno were SmackDown Tag Team Champions. Developmental vs. Main Roster. And like another user on the talk page said, they were the inaugural SmackDown Tag Team Champions and the longest reigning. If that doesn't call notable, I don't know what does. Thank you. --Chrismaster1 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last AfD took place while they were champions and nothing has changed since them to make them more notable. These were two established guys thrown together to make a team, the Vaudevillains and Ascension guys aren't separable from their tag team gimmick... If anything their individual articles should be merged with the main tag team article.LM2000 (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable put together team like Breezango and Golden Truth that will split up and no one will ever remember. The Vaudevillains and Ascension are notable because they are strictly tag teams, while Health Slater and Rhino are known for singles competition and are not notable because of this tag team. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nuetral but lean towards keep I don't think this article necessarily needs deleted. There are a decent number of sources. This tag team has been around for a good bit of time now and are still a team. They were also the inaugural SmackDown Tag Team Champions, as well as the longest reigning. --JDC808 ♫ 09:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the sources do not help establish notability. They are
WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 12:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Skinner

)

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

Deletion requested by article subject on OTRS ticket #2017022710002279, per

WP:BBLP. ~~Nominator expresses no opinion.~~ Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

On reflection, I am going to express my opinion that this article be deleted - it does not appear that the subject of the article meets

WP:PROF, and further discussion suggests this article may actually be a joke created by one of his colleagues. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. I support deletion of articles for people of marginal notability when the subject requests it.-gadfium 19:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've given the article a once-over but will not voice an opinion on whether it should be kept.
Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- Per nom and Gadfium. -- Shudde ^talk 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SIGCOV. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern studies on the brain

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

Going to boldly propose this strange list for deletion. None of the entries have reliable sources to support them meeting our notability criteria. The list has no inclusion criteria. We are

talk) 10:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per
WP:NOTESSAY
.

The only non-Wikipedia-mirror hit for "modern studies on the brain" (consecutive words) is this Amazon page; the matching text seems to be a chapter header of the book. Weirdly enough the book cover and the article have a very similar picture, so there might be promotion or copvio issues. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World

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

Per

WP:NBOOK. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: Per this discussion the Daily Mail is no longer considered to be a RS on Wikipedia, so I've removed the claims backed up by those sources. The arguments that seem to have ultimately led to the DM losing its RS status are "poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication", which means that we probably shouldn't even rely on comments made by people who would otherwise be seen as RS in their own right unless those same claims and comments are backed up by sources that are still seen as RS on Wikipedia. This still leaves two sources, which I'll look at shortly.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I found reviews by the New Statesman and Publishers Weekly. As ridiculous the claims in the book appear to be, the work does seem to technically pass notability guidelines for books, as it's been written about in four publications that are currently seen as RS.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 02:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This nomination seems to be a misreading of

WP:NBOOK as it "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." [19] [20] [21] I personally think that is rather a low bar, but that is what the guideline says.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep as demonstrated above, this book passes the notability guidelines. The fact that this book is not serious has no bearing on its notability.
Lepricavark (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article seems to be of less-than-standard quality, but it does not fall under
talk) 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2009, with a result of speedy keep, albeit the reasoning for deletion being quite foolish, stating that the book is 'silly and stupid'. Wasn't sure if this would have any impact, so I'll just leave it here.
talk) 12:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and save us from the book burners. A book does not need to be a "serious work of history" to be notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with nom/Pawnkingthree.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Deletion nomination seems to seriously misunderstand both
WP:NBOOK. Just because the book may be regarded as absurd does not mean the article can be validly deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Merced

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

Non-notable political candidate. Does not have sufficient in depth coverage for

WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3rd party candidates in the US, except maybe ones running for president, are almost never notable for such alone, and nothing else he has done shows notability. Even major party senate candidates are not automatically notable, they need to either have previous notability (which a lot do because they have served in congress, state legislatures or as governor), or they need to get more than routine levels of coverage (which for senate cnadidates of major parties normally exists, since there are only about 32 races every 2 years, while the house has over 400 races every 2 years, although some lack major party candidates.) Nothing about Merced suggests he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person per
WP:NPOL. No other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get articles because candidate per se — they can clear the bar if they can be shown and sourced as having already been notable enough for an article for the work they were doing before they became a candidate, but if you're going for "notable because election campaign" then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article on that basis. But this shows no preexisting notability at all, and is referenced almost entirely to
WP:GNG claim. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Keatley

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

This individual does not meet

WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for office who isn't in office. PROD removed by article creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

==individual does meet

WP:GNG

criteria based on coverage in Atlanta Journal Constitution, primary newspaper for city of Atlanta, see ref. 3.~~

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of
WP:Prof by this unelected politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC).[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

==

WP:ACADEMIC

added bibliography of independent research in renaissance~~

Retain. based on
WP:ACADEMIC

Dougbremner (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @
  WP:ACADEMIC. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

== see added bibliography of original work Dougbremner (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Simply listing a bibliography of his work isn't what it takes to demonstrate a WP:ACADEMIC pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per
Wikipedia:CAE, non-notable candidate for office. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Local coverage of local elections always exists, so every candidate for any office could always claim to pass
"who happens to be in the news today?", so politicians get Wikipedia articles for winning election and holding office, not just for running in an election. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Barbier

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

All I see is routine sports reporting on this subject. I don't see anything that would meet

Talk) 05:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Talk) 05:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete lacks non-routine coverage to establish notability.
Lepricavark (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete a minor league baseball player who lacks coverage that rises to the level of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable baseball player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obvious GNG failure, there is clear consensus that players who at one point pass NFOOTY but who's careers then go backwards need to overtly show GNG. This player played in an

FPL once. Fenix down (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Dimitar Ivanov (footballer, born 1991)

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

While this article technically meets

WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although it's only one appearance, he does pass
WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully professional league. Other than that, there are no restrictions on the number of appearances that make a player notable. Kosack (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - one appearance a number of years ago (to technically meet
COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish, Andrei Nițu, Daniel Oliveira Costa, Samuel Huber and Jordan Copp, amongst others. Giant Snowman 13:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one appearance is just enough to suggest the individual probably has good sourcing, but we need to use common sense, and go with the lack of actual good sourcing and delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE
is actually as common as asserted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete/Comment - although the subject of this article has made one appearance in a professional match, that was nearly five years ago and there is no sign of him making another one soon. Article pretty comprehensively fails
WP:NFOOTBALL I think per GiantSnowman's comment that a delete would be most appropriate in this situation. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
Notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 20:43, 27 February 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James McCown

James McCown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable army officer -- highest rank was Colonel. No substantial coverage--just inclusions in group histories. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All right, I change my vote, as long as more notability could be woven into the article.TH1980 (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. (Full disclosure, I wrote the article.) And to be honest I'm surprised and disappointed in this nomination, User:DGG. This is not a MySpace band or a D-list video game character or some obscure recent person. This is an actual historical figure who was involved in and shaped important historical events. If our mission is not to include material on important actors in major historical events, what we even here for? The American Civil War was really important! The 5th Regiment of Missouri Infantry was an important outfit! They fought in some really important battles. James McCown led them throughout the war from start to finish, from Corinth to Vicksburg to Atlanta to Franklin and Nashville to the bitter end at Mobile.

It's true the sources are poor (although sufficient for a reasonable-size article of a few paragraphs), but that's a problem with the sources not the subject. I'll bet that Westerners in Gray: The Men and Missions of the Elite Fifth Missouri Infantry Regiment has lots more, but I don't have that book at hand. But maybe someone who does will come along and add to the article -- unless we, you know, delete it.

I'm just... I'm quite frankly having trouble adjusting to what seems to be a kind of new ethos here, that our job here at the Wikipedia is to trim out existing information so that readers will have less access to information. Why? Are our printing costs getting too high? You know, every time someone looks for information in the Wikipedia and can't find it, a kitten dies.

It's not that we shouldn't get rid of articles. There are several articles made every day that don't belong -- local band, author with a couple non-notable books, local store, somebody's elementary school. Amateur ballplayer, somebody's app, local neighborhood figure. Promotional articles. Fine. James McCown is none of these. He is an actual historical figure on whom material is available even now, 150 years after he died, because people (rightly or wrongly) consider even the details of American history to be important. Herostratus (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is based on the accepted WP:MIL requirement that a person be either a general officer or involved in a major way in something important [etc.], none of which is met here, along with our standard requirement for substantial sourcing. Whatever the relationship of this sng and the gng , neither are met. The significance of these formal requirements is to provide a way to answer the question, what possibly makes him more notable than every Colonel in that war? The reason for asking that question is the basic principle, NOTINDISCRIMINATE.

It is certainly a possibility to set the level higher or lower. Personally, I would have set it higher than the US rank of brigadier general, but since the consensus is to accept them, I do also. Personally, I would count rank and significant events as in the SNG as more important than sourcing (beyond the minimal level of verifiability), but as this is uncertain, I look at both.

The reason we have the basic policy of NOTINDISCRIMINATE is to look like an encyclopedia, which is different from a list of everyone. The line is always going to be arbitrary. The point of an encyclopedia is not that it contains whatever someone can find a source for, but that it have some level of significance. Myself, I think it important to be consistent--at least to some extent. I would very gladly have articles for everything in my own sphere of interest for which I could possibly scrape sourcing together; if I really pushed, I could carry that quite far in the direction of local for my neighborhood (or, for that matter , my extended family or my classmates or my teachers or colleagues.,and I suspect that about a third of them would actually be accepted, if only by accident.) I don't think that's a reasonable way to build a community project. A community project needs community standards. We are already so wildly erratic in our coverage that my view is we should complete what is within our present scope, and leave what is beyond it to specialized resources. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. OK, I looked at
WP:SOLDIER
. It's basically OK. I think you're being too strict in applying it though.

I am on board with just being a peacetime colonel not by itself being enough to merit an article, usually. I think there's a huge difference between a peacetime colonel and someone who led a regiment in many of the major campaigns of the the most important war in American history, though.

And in fact the rule does say (point 4) "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" which McCown did many times. Depending on how you take it; all those terms ("important", "significant", "major") are subjective.

Although point 5 then says "Commanded... in combat... a divisional formation or higher" which McCown did not. Does point 5 negate point 4? Does point 5 imply that "important role" has to be "division command"? Not really; you could be just a company commander, and if your company held a crucial bridge in an important battle, that would be an "important role" I guess. (And in fact John Howard, who was only a major and company commander, did exactly that (Pegasus Bridge) and has an article because of it.)

I don't know if McCown's command played that kind of important role in some or any of his many battles. I'd be surprised if they didn't. It says here that the 5th was "one of the Civil War’s most decorated... infantry regiments" and if that's true they weren't skulking in the rear. There are books that would tell us more (Bevier's A History of the First and Second Missouri Confederate Brigades for instance) but I don't have them. Herostratus (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply commanding a Confederate regiment isn't sufficient for a standalone article, as shown by the lack of strong references. It doesn't appear he did anything out of the ordinary to distinguish himself, even if he and regiment did participate in many battles. If or when the 5th Missouri Regiment (Confederacy) is created, some part of this article could be added there. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. McCown doesn't pass
WP:GNG. I could not find "most decorated" in the Google Books copy of Westerners in Gray.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Well but as I noted above
WP:SOLDIER
includes "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". There's no question that the man was in many major battles and campaigns. I'd say that commanding a regiment is an "important role".

As far as
WP:GNG past the breaking point to hold that that the man doesn't meet GNG. Herostratus (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete inadequate coverage in secondary sources. We generally do not count coverage in 150+ year old newspapers especially of passing news to show someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't we count coverage in 150+ year old newspapers?
Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Many officers in the civil war who had interesting military and non-military careers, such as McCown, are definitely of interest to our editors and readers. In general, and this individual in particular, there is a good deal of contemporary (ie 1800s) news coverage about these individuals, as they were usually community leaders of one sort or another. Burgess and Burgess 2009, the three "150+ year old newspaper" articles currently cited, and the Missouri Historical Review (1913-1914) article give some indication of coverage from over a century ago. In modern sources, McCown is given one or two paragraph biographies with a picture in Piston 2009, Garrett 2009, and in a local history by Roberts and Roberts 2012. Tucker 1995 discusses his role in the war, which does seem to have been at least nearly "important role in a significant military event". Ultimately, I !vote keep based on GNG given the Piston and Garrett coverage in particular. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a general point, even if the golden rule can't be met with sources that are online or available to most editors, my opinion is that AfD comments should be in part about one's belief about the likelyhood of achieving notability rather than the sources currently in the article. I remember once reading that subject specific guidelines are (or at least used to be) based on the idea that if a subject meets them, they are likely to meet GNG, even if the sources aren't immediately found (that is, they are shortcuts to use when sources are unavailable for individuals who are extremely likely to be notable, and not meant to exclude individuals who don't meet the recommendations). I agree with Herostratus that while the sources were initially poorer than they currently are, it is not a surprise that the sources were improved and I would not be surprised if more sources are added later. As regards to Herostratus' comment about a new ethos, my AGF assumption/hope is that those arguing against retention of the article did not think that better sources could be found or that they do not agree with me that what they found met GNG or they were unable to find sources such as those that have since been added. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Thanks mostly to your work I think the subject now meets
WP:GNG, pretty clearly, and I call on future commentors and the closer to make note of this. (And even if you wanted to say this are on the borderline and debatable (I don't think it even is anymore), this is a historical figure; as an encyclopedia I think we ought to give a little more shrift to "serious" subjects such as history, geography, science, etc. than we might to videogame characters etc., so the benefit of any doubt would go to retaining the material in this case.) Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
notability does not expire. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Herostratus. I perceive no value in deleting this type of article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not appear to be focused on this person, and he was one of what must have been literally thousands of officers to have commanded a regiment during the US Civil War (such units were typically less than 1000 men strong and rarely operated independently and so commanding them doesn't imply notability). As such, WP:BIO is not met. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly echo Newyorkbrad's sentiment here. This isn't a stub, but a developed, informative article. The notability of the subject may be borderline, but I believe we should err on the side of keeping an article such as this one.
Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Clearly enough material to write a good article with. I'm not all that familiar with this admittedly obscure conflict, but he 5th Missouri Infantry seems to have been famous enough to write book about. Subject seems to have participated in reasonably famous battles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If an individual measures up to the criteria of the GNG then SOLDIER is irrelevant. Furthermore, my confidence in how those on the MILITARY WIKIPROJECT manage and interpret SOLDIER has been completely eroded. Those on the MILITARY WIKIPROJECT usually argue that a General is notable, even if there aren't sufficient references for him to measure up to GNG. But, a few years ago, I saw multiple individuals who usually took that line arguing for the deletion of an article on a rogue General, a guy, moreover, who probably did measure up to GNG. In that AFD these fans of the military took the complete opposite position they usually took. They had suddently decided that the exception to GNG they had alwasy argued SOLDIER had for Generals, didn't apply to one-star Brigadier Generals.
Anyhow, hats off to those who found the additional references who established McCown measures up to the GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep generally following the reasoning of
WP:V. It is of interest to a relatively large set of readers. I do not see how the encyclopedia would be improved with the deletion of this article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the fact that the subject mater and citations are many years old should have no effect on the notability of the article. The above keep votes have already illustrated the reasons to keep this article well enough. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) J 947 02:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Disco Boys

The Disco Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:Music - TheMagnificentist 11:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 7:42 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 7:42 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 7:42 pm, Today (UTC+8)

Keep. Can be expanded from
WP:GNG exist for this quite durable and in Germany popular DJ duo. — Sam Sailor 07:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has been on here for 8 years. The band has a big presence on Google and is featured on soundcloud and has stuff removed from Google for copyright violation. This tells me they are significant. If there is stuff on German wiki, def. it can be included. More work to dig up
WP:RS is worthy but the article should stay. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spooks Nightmare

Spooks Nightmare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sourced to official websites of author and publisher. There is one article in a
WP:NBOOK. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I'm torn between recommending a redirect or just outright deletion. I found one review, but that's pretty much it. It was nominated for a minor children's award but didn't win. Now the thing is, the title itself is incorrect - the title should be The Spook's Nightmare and there's already a redirect under this title that goes to (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Dearth of mentions of this work to be found on the web indicates notability insufficient for own article. Nomination for award could be covered in The Spook's Nightmare) already exists. A further redirect with this (incorrect) name would surely be excessive. Guffydrawers (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game

Articles for deletion/2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game (2nd nomination)

2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable game that was just one of many in 2005. There was nothing special about this game, and it received only
WP:ROUTINE coverage. The game holds little to no historical significance; as such has not been discussed at all by reliable sources in recent years. Lizard (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia should never have become about articles like this. The thousands and thousands of DI games in history should not be considered notable just because many of them have been played in an age where coverage is abundant. MLA (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete, which is essentially the argument that although there is plenty of coverage we still shouldn't keep the article because Wikipedia shouldn't be about this particular subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep like it or not, the game received a significant amount of coverage, far beyond the "routine" coverage of box scores and listings. See essay
Notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Has had lasting coverage, and a significant amount. Notability is not temporary, as pointed out above, nor is
WP:IDONTLIKEIT a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@Smartyllama: Can you point out a few examples of the "lasting coverage", i.e., significant coverage of this game outside the game's immediate aftermath? Cbl62 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge any useful content into 2005 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas A&M). In an annual rivalry game, the #2 team in the country defeated an unranked team by a 40–29 score. Texas' 2005 national championship season is highly notable and has a stand-alone article that includes detailed treatment of each game, including this one. As a matter of sound editorial judgment, I do not believe it is prudent to allow stand-alone articles for individual games unless there is something truly extraordinary about them. There is nothing extraordinary about this game. Sure, the game received abundant coverage, but that is true of every game Texas played that year and every game that any national championship team plays. But games such as this one can and should be adequately covered in the team's season article, not in stand-alone articles for each game. Cbl62 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at it, the clearer it becomes that this article does not warrant a stand-alone article. The "Analysis" section of the article notes that the game was Texas' "poorest performance of the season ... both offensively and defensively," and then details the poor performances given by various players and units. It strike me as fundamentally misguided to allow a stand-alone article about a game where the only supposedly "extraordinary" thing about it is that the performances were poor in comparison to the rest of the season. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: The game at issue, according to List of Texas Longhorns football games, is not even regarded as one of the great games in Texas football history. Indeed, it is not even rated as one of Texas' greatest games of the 2005 season -- the linked article lists three 2005 Texas games as being among the great games, but notably does not include this one. Moreover, I've yet to see any evidence that this game has been the subject of enduring, significant coverage after the immediate aftermath of the game. If this game, involving a poor performance by a good team, meets the standard for a stand-alone article, then "Katy bar the door," 'cause people will feel free to create game articles for just about any game played by a major program. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we put it on that list, would that make a difference?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, putting it on the list, belatedly and while the AfD is pending, wouldn't make a difference. ;) Cbl62 (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would failing to put it on the list before make any difference? Wikipedia is far from complete, and perhaps that article is incomplete. Failure of this article to not be mentioned in that article is not a reason to delete this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
List of historically significant college football games -- do you honestly believe the game at issue here belongs on such a list of historically significant games? My bottom line: There is nothing historic or extraordinary about this game to warrant a departure from the general practice. Further, as noted above, noboby has presented evidence that this game received enduring coverage (i.e., significant coverage beyond news reports in the game's immediate wake). Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Good arguments and sound reasoning. Where I disagree is that I do not believe that "historic or extraordinary" are the proper measures of notability. The proper measure, in my view, is best expressed in
WP:N. There we find that topics are presumed acceptable for inclusion if they pass the general notability guideline and do not violate any given policy. Measures such as "historic" or "extraordinary" lead to personal interpretation instead of a specific measure. And that's why I find this article and others like it to be notable and worthy of inclusion--because this article and its "cousins" meet the specific measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

For me, it's not a question of notability, as most
WP:GNG. It's an issue of editorial judgment in how we present content about individual games, and I think team season articles are the best format, with an exception for the truly exceptional game that requires a more in depth analysis. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That's sound reasoning. The issue I see is that what usually happens is the game article is deleted and the season article is either never created or the game information is never added. In other words, I find that many times that "merge" is the decision but "delete" is the result. Another problem is that by using season articles for games, we now have double-entry for each game--one for the season article for the home team, and one more for the season article for the visitor team. That makes maintenance more difficult and warrants separate articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge per Cb162. It is true that any game Texas played would have received massive coverage. We should indeed limit such as articles as these to those games that were truly significant. That being said, I'd be open to reconsidering my position if someone could provide evidence for the above claim of lasting coverage.
Lepricavark (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. The game already has a couple of paragraphs in the Longhorns season article. Also consider deleting 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game and 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game. Just because two traditional powers clash doesn't mean the game itself deserves a monument. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Regular season NCAA football games are generally not notable. No records were set; nothing else seems more notable than other games. Fbdave (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As further support for the established practice of discouraging stand-alone articles on regular season football games, see Dirtlawyer1 and others' discussion of
WP:SPORTSEVENT and related policies at the following similar AfDs (all closed as delete): (1) 1996 UCLA vs. Tennessee; (2) 2011 Michigan vs Notre Dame; (3)-(9) 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games; (10)-(13) 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 Cowboys Classic; (14) 2008 Oregon vs. Oregon State; (15) 2007 Missouri vs. Kansas; (16) 2001 Tennessee vs. Florida; (17) 2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M; (18) 1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State; (19) 2006 USC vs. UCLA; (20) 2015 Florida State vs. Georgia Tech; (21) 2007 Pitt vs. West Virginia; (22)-(23) 2013 and 2014 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff, and (24) 2006 Texas vs. Ohio State. See also Harbaugh Bowl discussing the same principles in an NFL context. Cbl62 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Nothing to make this particular game stand out as notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus Publishing

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Daedalus Publishing

Articles for deletion/Daedalus Publishing (2nd nomination)

Daedalus Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable publisher--and really part of a walled garden. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- I could not locate any sources either in books or news. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per
WP:SKCRIT point #3. This nomination is just too erroneous (although the editor may have read the article), and consensus in the previous AfD discussion, which was closed with a keep result five days before the article was renominated here, had unanimous consensus for retention (except for the nominator). Furthermore, the organization's website here is not dead, and the organization is not defunct. This is evident per the organization having published several bulletins on their website in 2017, the most recent occurring on February 28, 2017 (link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Immigration Watch Canada

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Immigration Watch Canada

Articles for deletion/Immigration Watch Canada (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Immigration Watch Canada (3rd nomination)

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

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

We have no need for an article on a defunct organization that has no historical value. I just noticed this was just up for deletion last month ...after I made this nomination....sorry. anyone free tO cancel this nomination if it's too soon. But was anyone aware the site has been dead for almost a year. http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/ organization was never able to raise funds. Moxy (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:24, 27 February 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. If things change and notability is established, then the article can be recreated. Kurykh (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Maan

Ravinder Maan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails
WP:NACTOR (it requires "significant roles in multiple notable films"). Chris Troutman (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know why you thought there was a previous PROD? I don't see one. Adam9007 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: I saw this but didn't read this closely enough. Lesson learned. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could be wrong, given how hard it is to find English sources, but nothing I found credibly indicates this passes GNG. The claim that Maan has had notable film roles for decades is extraordinarily unlikely; why else wasn't it created until its subject came along to do it four days ago?
CityOf Silver 00:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment (may change this to a vote later). She had a leading role in WP:NACTOR. Right now I'm not seeing it, but it's possible given the length of her career. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Seventh-day Adventist_Church#Health and diet. Mz7 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Country Life Restaurants

Country Life Restaurants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

there is no notability in country life restaurants and a restaurant is not important to SDA doctrines and there is no reason to list every small business that exists in another words just because your business has its own website does not mean its eligible for wikipedia this violates WP:CORP and WP:NOT also the article seems to be more what ellen white said about what we should eat than the actual restaurant itself Jonnymoon96 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Selective Merge to
WP:ATD-M, which presently has no mention of this. Source searches are providing some coverage (e.g. [22], [23]), but not finding enough to support a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Selective Merge per Northamerica1000. I also agree there is enough notability to add this to the SDA article section. Found another article about the New York location from 1987 [24]. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Seventh-day Adventist Church § Health and diet. I ran a couple of searches and added RS. There's not really enough to support an article, but more than enough to justify keeping some material as a merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_February_27&oldid=1142619110"