Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 21 May 23 May >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Lisburn F.C

Sporting Lisburn F.C (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)

Amateur football club with no significant reliable coverage in third-party sources. Plainly fails the

notability test. Pichpich (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails
    WP:FOOTYN, no indication the team has competed in a national competition. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 30 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hauser

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

Fails

WP:BIO. Kleuske (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:28, 23 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take The State

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

Article about a newly formed PAC. I am unable to find a single independent source. Fails

WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 23:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:31, 23 May 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(T) 21:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Bush Inn

The Bush Inn (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)

Notability issue tagged since 2016. Sources are mentions in guidebooks. The presence of the Pub on the St Hilary, Vale of Glamorgan page could seem enough or be expanded there if necessary. The building is a Grade II Listed building (the lowest rank, for special interest buildings; buildings dating from before 1700 seem easily listed as such...) darthbunk pakt dunft 22:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are around 350,000 Grade II listed buildings in the UK. I can see four (including a Red telephone box) from our bedroom window. This pub may or may not meet GNG but it certainly shouldn't purely because it is listed. If it was Grade II* or Grade I, that would be a different matter. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed; it's sometimes hard to convey to people in other countries—where "historic" status is usually more carefully guarded—just how freely listed building status is handed out in the UK. To put things in perspective, this pub is listed at the same level of historic importance as this fence or these gateposts. The pub may or may not be noteworthy—I don't know enough about the area to judge—but a grade II listing means absolutely nothing in terms of determining notability. ‑ 
    Iridescent 22:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Grade II listing certainly does mean something; it puts the historic significance of the place out there. Not at all saying that all Grade II's are notable. But, hmm, look at the photo in the article. It's in Category:Thatched buildings, which is oddly small as a category. I think it is better to leave it tagged and encourage development on the historic specifics. Also, I don't see what is wrong with guidebooks. --doncram 23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per doncram. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This ancient public house is notable as an example given in books of its type of historic building. See here and here, and appears in an inventory of ancient monuments in Glamorganshire here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 29 May 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Creek Middle School

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

No sources since 2012, only the School website. Notability issue tagged that same year and yet unaddressed. darthbunk pakt dunft 22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:46, 23 May 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 Magic: The Gathering. (The redirect was a misclick.)  Sandstein  20:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magicthegathering.com

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

The article topic is not covered by

review
today also indicates a lack of the sources necessary to write this article.

A "redirect" result is not particularly objectionable (presumably to

a bold redirect
might have been undone, so I'm skipping that step.

For reference, the pair of searches reviewed: [1] and [2]. Izno (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect a redirect is the right choice here. This is no longer in active use as a brand.
    talk) 23:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:50, 22 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City 7 TV (Ireland)

City 7 TV (Ireland) (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 TV channel, Finding everything for the Dubai TV channel of the same name however can't find anything for this, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 19:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any updated relevant information about this channel should be moved into City Channel. Since neither the channel nor the parent company articles seem to be up to date, I can't really find any information about it other than it was planned for launch around 2009, not sure if it ever launched based on information in City Channel article. WikiVirusC (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazingly the little paragraph at City_Channel#City_7 seems to be more up to date than the entire article!, Anyway there's not really anything to be merged, Suppose it could be redirected if really desired, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 22 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ekman-Larsson

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

A search of Swedish and English news sites makes it appears that he currently fails

WP:NHOCKEY, he needs over 100 games in the AHL to reach that level. Could be suitable to redirect to Oliver Ekman-Larsson#Personal life until when or if Kevin ever reaches notability. Yosemiter (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 22 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Mastery

Digital Mastery (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)

TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Cut down to to what? Two of the sources are broken, one is Wikipedia, one is a power point (we'll get back to that later), and most of the rest don't use the term at all, not even in passing ([3], [4], [5], [6]). One source actually does ([7]), and it's pretty much empty jargon all the way down (e.g., lets talk about vision... and pretend like its a term that has some sort of well-defined substance when it obviously doesn't).
The term itself is so exceedingly vague that its really fundamentally impossible to tell if sources "using it" are actually using it, or just using those words in that order, that is, unless it somehow traces back to this single book, which appears to be the crux of the whole thing, and is the same actual source for the power point and the one interview that seems to be using the term in this particular way.
The only thing of any encyclopedic relevance I can see this ever turning into is an article on the book itself. It might actually be notable, but it's hard to tell. A lot of the sources are "about stuff" and mention the book, and vaguely about concepts related to the person, or book, or something... and some of it is so ... honestly patently cringe worthy in the sheer magnitude of the corporate circle jerk that it's hard to read (e.g., Successful digital transformation is like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. [8]). If you made some of this stuff up as a parody of corporate cruft it wouldn't be believable.
But even if the book is notable, this article isn't about the book, and clearing away all the gory borderline advocacy-like uncritical acceptance of the book's concepts, and all the obvious original research along with it, we're pretty much left with Digital Mastery is a concept coined by some guy in some book.
TimothyJosephWood 12:29, 24 May 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 Nostalgia Critic. (If someone wishes to simply redirect without merging, that too is acceptable) (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Walker (actor)

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

Not notable independently of Nostalgia Critic, where most of this info is already stated. Delete or merge back into Nostalgia Critic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to
    talk) 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge to Nostalgia Critic. By the way, I love his reviews. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect . He does not seem to meet notability guidelines in his own right, being only notable for his presence in the web series. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nostalgia Critic - not notable except for this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Nostalgia Critic. He's only notable for one thing. I don't see much information that could benefit for him having a standalone article that could be inserted/used in the Nostalgia Critic article, either. --ZLMedia 23:54, 27 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azariah Soromon

Azariah Soromon (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:52, 22 May 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 00:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Patrick

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

Fails

GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, nor has he received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
    WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster-of-the-Week characters in The X-Files

List of Monster-of-the-Week characters in The X-Files (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)

talk) 15:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:18, 22 May 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.
In any case, if anyone wants to see it, a copy is at "List of Monster-of-the-Week characters in The X-Files". Archived from the original on 2016-04-17. Jimw338 (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wizardman 16:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia national baseball team

Serbia national baseball team (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)

Much too small, too small even for a STUB. Sorry to the page creator. GermanyGermanGamer77 (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)United Kingdom[reply]

I think we should expand it, or delete it. GermanyGermanGamer77 (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)United Kingdom[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 22 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedCompany

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

I did not go for G11 to have a debate before deleting it on grounds of

WP:COMPANY in current form Devopam (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:59, 22 May 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(T) 11:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

2018 IIHF World Championship Division I

2018 IIHF World Championship Division I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a sports tournament that will not happen for nearly a year. Consists of empty tables and closely connected sources. This stats page is

WP:NOTSTATS. - MrX 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 13:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 29 May 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. No one's recommending keeping, and this has been open 11 days. Deor (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canon of Amsterdam

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

This look like a non-notable list. The only cited reference is the web page of the contest itself, which is offline now. I can't find any other reliable sources with significant coverage. Google News Search returns no hits [10]. Similarly, Google Books search returns only one, self published book.[11] Vanjagenije (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:55, 22 May 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 and that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. North America1000 03:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VirtoCommerce

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

This article's sources are all either affiliated with the company, re-postings of press releases, or blog posts. The award listed on the site is a second place mention from 'CMS critic', which appears to be a non-notable blog. I've looked and I haven't found any better sources, so I believe this article does not meet the

MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

It's also important to mention that this moderator never gently told me what exactly to fix and never helped me, just deleted, marked and replied "I will say simply, just stop spamming". This is not a way polite people help each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrei Iunisov: Independent reliable sources are needed to prove notability (eg. reviews/articles in published/online magazines, books about article subject etc.). Press-releases are OK for plain verifitability of undisputed content, but their abundance is often sign of lack of better sources. Pavlor (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but why not just deleting the press-releases only? Why do GitHub links or license is treated badly? The moderator doesn't understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Iunisov (talk • contribs) 09:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is not that these primary and company written sources should not be here or should be 'treated badly', the point is that certain types of sources are required to have an article, and none of the sources currently used in the article are the
    MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KonaKart - these guys are published and also have no sources. What's the difference between their page and our page? Andrei Iunisov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a tag on the top of the page saying that that one probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines either. I'm sure someone will get around to nominating it for deletion eventually.
    MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this again...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. See

WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy

Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy (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 three articles:

Ukrainian Medical Stomatological Academy
, so I would just merge and redirect that way. Given "Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy" seems neither to be a distinct topic nor the name of a distinct entity, I propose deleting it altogether to avoid confusion.

Looking further, all three are tagged {{

WP:N overall. DMacks (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least this one. As I read the title of the Ukrainian article they want to expand (disclaimer: don't expect much more than a transliteration of the title, as I don't have any Ukrainian), it's the "Ukrayins'ka Medichna Stomatologichna Akademiya", which suggests that the "Stomatological" academy's article is the one which should be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:58, 22 May 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. Hut 8.5 20:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Railways Carriage Factory

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

Article, under the title

WP:NCORP. Both should be deleted. Onel5969 TT me 11:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is the recently created redirect to the main article under nomination for deletion:

Carriage Factory Islamabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, but this is about trains......Choo, Choo!! Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same position as of proposer. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to meet
    WP:CORP. I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 25 May 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. North America1000 00:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egg, Inc.

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

WP:NN in current form Devopam (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:05, 22 May 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. I will consider restoring as a redirect if someone wants to merge it somewhere else, but I suggest they come up with some references first. This close doesn't preclude anyone creating a redirect at this title. Hut 8.5 20:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karone

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

No references at all, tag pending since Dec 2009 Devopam (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Article makes no claim of notability, and cites no sources. --Slashme (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article was merged and redirected into
    Merger noticeboard and per precedent for fictional, non-notable characters, as discussed here and elsewhere. Merger was reverted by @Emir of Wikipedia: with no improvement to the article. This article is a horribly written, plot-only article with no encyclopedic value, no notability, and no referencing or citations (absolutely zero) and has been sitting as such for over a decade. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I reverted as the discussion at Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Lost_Galaxy_characters#Merger_proposal, which was the discussion mentioned in the tag, had no consensus. Richard3120 and Atlantic306 also commented in the discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quite well written and I voted against merge in the hope that someone who knew the subject would add real world information and references but unfortunately nothing happened in the next 8 months Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly are an optimist. The article had ten years to collect notability references and just couldn't. Largely because the subject is wholly non-notable, especially for a stand-alone article. Keep looking up! GenQuest "Talk to Me" 15:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Do you not think a redirect to List of Power Rangers Lost Galaxy characters is more appropriate? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:37, 30 May 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MD Asif

MD Asif (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)

Notability concerns since 2014, I see three roles in his filmography, only one with anything resembling a named role, in

WP:MANOTE. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above. With respect to martial arts the criteria is better served with
    WP:MANOTE which he does not meet.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks, rationale updated. Uncle Roy (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article reeks of paid promotion or autobiography, given that this guy pulled a mostly-formed article out of thin air. I do also notice this slightly-older Md Asif article, which seems to have been created by the article subject via (at least) 2 different Wikipedia accounts. I would not be surprised if "Rocky Sharma" was MD Asif. Anyway, getting to the stronger deletion rationale, I don't find any significant coverage of this person via the Indian newspaper search engine. I mostly see stuff like this, which is about a Pakistani cricket player. Searching the engine for his name plus Thuppaki (you know, one of the major films he was in where he played "second in command of the sleeper cell", "opposite superstar actor Vijay"[14]) produces no hits, which strongly implies that no reliable source was interested in covering him. References like this seem like little more than press releases. Seriously, how can the subject be a renowned actor with only two films under his belt? Article seems like fluff and APN News is questionable as a reference as their About page seems like a vanity project itself. There are no significant Google News hit for "MD Asif" kamasutra or "MD Asif" Thuppaki. There appears to be no record of him in reliable mainstream sources. Far too soon for article, and this has vanity written all over it, especially since in the Career section we're expected to assume success-by-association. His non-major role in Thuppaki contributed to Thuppaki being the highest-grossing Indian film of that year and his minor role in Kamasutra 3D resulted in the film being eligible for Oscar consideration. The confusing language "Kamasutra 3D was retained for nominations of the 86th Academy Awards in three categories" was especially perplexing, as it suggests the film was actually nominated, when in fact it looks like it was submitted for consideration. Unless I'm mistaken, this looks like puffery. Delete. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see evidence to show he meets
    WP:GNG. I also didn't find anything that shows he meets the notability criteria for actors or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 19:30, 28 May 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) 01:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motion RC

Motion RC (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)

Another cookie cutter hobby store who do not assert notability like every other

WP:COI article about businesses. Donnie Park (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article contains no claim to notability, merely describing a company's business, nor are my searches finding anything better than routine listings and customer reviews. Fails
    WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:21, 22 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jordan

Ross Jordan (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 wrestler. Lacks GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet
    WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant reliable independent coverage. Nikki♥311 22:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable wrestler who competed for a number of indepdent British promotions. No indication of significant independent coverage to meet
    WP:GNG and nothing to show he's a notable entertainer (which is the SNG pro wrestlers fall under). Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 28 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bikash Pokharel

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

Does not meet

biographical notability. Google search finds no independent third-party coverage (only vanity coverage). Has promotional tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 10:40, 22 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herr beach

Herr beach (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 geographic feature as per

WP:NGEO; named based on colloquial opinion. Any genuine content (with supporting references, which this article doesn't have) would be better inserted as a sentence in Blackrock, County Louth Nick Moyes (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:56, 22 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Murovich

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

fails

WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin (ice hockey)

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

fails

WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the AHL games needed to satisfy
    WP:NHOCKEY criteria #3. Gab4gab (talk
    )
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:18, 1 June 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. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Dian

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

Fails

WP:ANYBIO for lack of reliable independent sources. - MrX 14:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Significant coverage of the topic is only found in self-published primary sources, such as the subject's youtube and facebook pages. I should note an article on the topic exists in the Italian wikipedia, but even that article is created recently, and, perhaps more importantly, poorly sourced.--Dps04 (talk) 08:38, 22 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Larracuente

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

Fails

WP:NACTOR, he has only two (arguably insignificant) roles in TV shows Quasar G t - c 18:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this seems excessively deletionist. Hopefully someone who has watched Bloodline or 13 Reasons Why can give a more informed opinion.
    talk) 02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looking through his IMDB page, he's been in a number of productions, several of which are major. I think he fits the criteria for being notable. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:48, 22 May 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(T) 19:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Sekulich

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

WP:GNG for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep - notable enough for ABC News to interview him as a "piracy expert". I reviewed this brand spanking new BLP, did a bit of online research before I gave it a green-go, and as you stated above, the potential is there. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to dig for more because we're trying to catch-up on a growing backlog at NPR, and I'm currently in transit internationally, so my time is limited. Bearcat, just curious - did you try to find any sources that would establish his notability, or did you feel that because the cited sources didn't pass that it was best to delete the article? Perhaps it should've gone to the article TP first? I came across a few other articles with questionable notability - not even with the potential of this BLP - and they survived AfD. Atsme📞📧 18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For starters being the interview guest does not assist notability at all, because if he's talking about something other than himself then he fails to be the subject of that coverage. The only kind of source that can assist notability at all is where a
reliable source is publishing or broadcasting content in which other people are writing or speaking about him in the third person. And secondly, as my nomination statement already plainly demonstrates, I did undertake a search for the necessary type of sourcing — but I came up completely dry for anything at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Addional sources have been added, and there are more but I'm comfortable with what's there now as having satisfied N. He clearly meets N as a "creative professional" (filmmaker, director, author, expert on piracy, etc.) PBS programs/specials don't always get the kind of media attention as would a major network series or specials.) Atsme📞📧 19:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the new sources you added are virtually all still either
WP:GNG is in his hometown newspaper — but one piece of media coverage is not enough to claim GNG all by itself, and it doesn't support anything that would constitute an automatic pass of any SNG. His hometown newspaper might very well still have covered him if his only claim of notability was "owns a coffeeshop at the corner of Wellington and Pim", so the fact that one article exists in his hometown newspaper is not a GNG pass in and of itself. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge entirely on the sourceability or lack thereof, not on mere existence — creative professionals do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their work exists, so the fact that "PBS programs/specials don't always get the kind of media attention as would a major network series or specials" does not exempt him from having to pass GNG just because one of his films aired as a PBS special. His includability depends entirely on media coverage about him, and the sourcing here just isn't showing that he passes that test. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Your arguments for deletion are contradicted by
WP:N
and the reasons follow:
  1. You stated: "His includability depends entirely on media coverage about him, and the sourcing here just isn't showing that he passes that test." Please see the ABC News article which is hardly trivial mention about Sekulich's expertise on piracy, and his book "Terror on the Seas: True Tales of Modern Pirates." One of the sections begins "Sekulich has little sympathy for the plight of the pirates, and he doesn't exactly buy their tale of losing the fishing industry or their claims about rampant pollution from outside ships." There's also the Variety review about the film Sekulich directed, Aftermath: The Remnants of War, which further serves as verifiability in an independent RS and includes information about him, such as "Helmer Daniel Sekulich follows the grim work of Valery Shtrykov, who is trying to identify and reclaim the remains of the battle’s dead, both Russian and German."
    WP:GNG
    considers the personal notable. Being notable is not the same as being famous. When you stack the multiple sources about Sekulich and his work, it's rather obvious that he passes GNG.
  2. You stated: "Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge entirely on the sourceability or lack thereof, not on mere existence." Well,
    WP:NPOSSIBLE
    disagrees, and specifically states (my bold): Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Look again at what editors have already sourced with limited searching.
  3. You even agreed in your deletion request: "who has potentially valid claims of notability but isn't reliably sourcing them.". Sekulich is a new article created 10 May 2017, and should not be deleted if we're following
    WP:PAG
    .
Again, it's rather obvious that he easily passes GNG based
WP:CREATIVE and RS media coverage to satisfy verifiability including ABC News, Variety, Hot News.ro, and local media such as Sault Star. I'm changing my position to Strong Keep. Atsme📞📧 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
1) A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of the sources, not by being one of several soundbite-givers in an article whose subject is a topic that is not him. The ABC News article falls in the class of "glancing namechecks of his existence", which is not a class of sourcing that assists in showing notability. Variety also namechecks his existence, but is about the film rather than him. HotNews.ro is not a reliable source at all, so it counts for nothing. And the Sault Star is local coverage in his own hometown, in which again he's providing commentary on an issue rather than being the subject of the coverage. So the ABC News, Variety and Sault Star sources would be acceptable for supplementary sourcing of stray facts within a mix of much more solid sourcing than the article is showing — but none of them is substantively enough about him to bring the GNG in and of itself.
2) You're misreading what that criterion means. The possibility of improved sourceability existing despite one's own lack of finding viable sources on a search does not create a blanket exemption from an article having to be sourced properly — and it pertains mainly to historical topics who might not turn up much in Google searches because they didn't get media coverage during the era when that media coverage was reliably locatable on the web. If he'd lived and worked and died 100 years ago, then one would have to dig deeper into news retrieval databases before going ahead with a nomination, because 100-year-old media coverage won't Google properly. But for a person who is currently active in his field and producing current work, Google is a reliable judge of whether the necessary level of sourcing exists or not — for a contemporary topic in the era when all media coverage that exists at all is always web-accessible in some form, it's quite literally impossible for any valid sourcing to somehow still exist outside of the ability to locate it via a Google search.
3) Notability criteria are not passed just because their passage has been asserted — lots of self-promoting wannabes try to get Wikipedia articles for publicity purposes by hyping their notability claim past the actual or sourceable reality of the situation (e.g. a musician falsely claiming to have achieved a higher chart position in Billboard than he ever actually did, a writer claiming to have been "nominated" for a major literary award for which she never actually made the shortlist just because her book was submitted by its publisher for consideration, a filmmaker PR-bumfing himself as "award-winning" without actually naming or sourcing what awards he won, etc.) So the mere claim to passing a notability criterion does not constitute a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have a
WP:GNG-satisfying level of reliable source coverage — the claim still has to be supported by a stronger volume of coverage than anything that's been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Firstly, what
self-published
elevator pitch about being "award-winning".
Secondly, a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by being "quoted" or "referred to" in coverage of other things that aren't him. But nobody's shown any evidence that he's the subject of any degree of reliable source coverage — this is based almost entirely on
primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not on coverage which has him as its subject. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • His
    talk) 18:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He garners just six Google News hits total, of which five are glancing acknowledgements of his existence, usually as a soundbite-giver, in articles whose subject is something other than him, and the other is a
WP:GNG? Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
On the films, first. Aftermath: The Remnants of War has a wikipedia article, won awards in 2002 (Gold Camera Award US International Film &Video Awards; Special Jury Award Houston International Film Festival; Wilbur Award Best Theatrical Documentary; Bronze Plaque Columbus International Film &Video Festival; Special Prize International Environmental Film Festival in Barcelona; UNESCO Prize/Jury Prize Brazil International Environmental Film Festival) and was independly reviewed, e.g. <http://libweb.lib.buffalo.edu/emro/emroDetail.asp?Number=1052>. Per
WP:CREATIVE anyone who creates a notable work is notable, whether or not their name receives hits on Google News. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 26 May 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. SoWhy 07:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul E. Marek

Paul E. Marek (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 blogger. No evidence found of

WP:JOURNALIST. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Writing an essay isn't proof of notability at all, and that seems to be all the subject has. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - his essay may be notable if it were the subject of reviews and commentary (but probably not), but Marek himself does not seem to be covered in sufficient reliable sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:56, 31 May 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, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sid's new glasses

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

Article doesn't appear to be notable. I was unable to find any reliable sources indicating anything other than the film's existence.

22408talk to me 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 22 May 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. SoWhy 07:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miyako Taxi

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

Delete because it fails

Miyazaki City. Perhaps it deserves mention in an article about Japanese transport, although I note that taxis are not discussed in the section Transport in Japan#Road, nor anywhere in the Transport in Japan article. --Bejnar (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 01:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the article makes no claim to notability, and consists entirely of a description of a marketing gimmick. No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this seems to be a
    WP:ONEEVENT sort of case, where there was a very brief flurry of some media interest, followed by nothing. It would be good to have some information on the Japanese taxi industry somewhere, and this event might justify a brief mention in said article, but there's no real valid merge target at the moment and the content in this article isn't so extensive it couldn't be easily recreated from scratch. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:17, 2 June 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weyoun

Weyoun (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 Star Trek character. No works discuss his significance/impact/influence; all I see are plot summaries. I suggest a soft deletion by redirecting to List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(T–Z)#W, where the lead of the current article can be added to the relevant entry in the list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to
WP:SCHOLARSHIP, PhD theses are acceptable, these theses are Masters and Bachelor-level. "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The quality of the first reference is disappointing, the entire section on him, while spanning three pages, is a plot summary. I don't see any analysis of his real world impact. Second link is broken (The Flinders University webpage you were looking for cannot be found) and since you did not provide a title or such, there is no way I can even discuss the source. The last source provides us with the following useful content: "Weyoun is typically portrayed as a diplomatic and jovial character, but his loyalty in the Founder means he disregards morals for the sake of faith as a conscious choice. His faith leads him to commit terrible acts in their name and at their command, such as ordering the execution of innocent individuals and also committing genocidal purges.75 His story and eventual downfall, as he dies protecting a Founder, demonstrates the lengths a person is willing to go to for the sake of one's beliefs". Useful, but I don't think this is sufficient for a stand-alone article. I still think this doesn't need anything else than 2-3 sentences in a relevant list. Soft deletion through redirect with no prejudice to merger, as I wrote above, would be totally fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Piotrus, the problem with your 'no prejudice against a merger' argument is that it's not binding on other !voters or the closing administrator, as we've seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (2nd nomination). Since there are no outright delete votes, why don't you withdraw the AfD, merge the content, and we can close this discussion as 'consensus to merge' if anyone disputes it? The content gets merged, the allegedly NN article no longer exists as a standalone, and the contribution history is preserved in case someone comes up with more than you or I did and wants to expand it. What's wrong with that approach? Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. It means I have to work to save content that I don't think belongs here. Given that this is already better described at MemoryAlpha, I don't see why I should waste my time trying to do so. Even if this is deleted, soft or not, it won't be a loss to anyone. I have better things to do than saving fancruft like this. If the community agrees it is a problem, the article will be deleted/redirect with no loss to anyone. If the community decides it should be kept, then I'll learn from that outcome. I don't see any reason I should be the one to spend time doing the merging - this should be left to someone who cares about the given topic more than, clearly, I do. PS. I really do think that in cases like EA we should be using soft deletion, and you are welcome to ping on me in any relevant discussion about undeletion/soft redirecting/changing our policies to make it so (pun intended). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, you do nothing to follow
WP:ELNO #12, but most fictional elements won't have an appropriate destination, and even if they did, then that destination would likely not be suitable as an external link. Real problems like POV pushing, astroturfing, and a dozen more serious issues pervade wikipedia, and yet you focus on destroying things that are, at worst, non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The Flinders reference has been repaired. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens - according to my reading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, neither of the theses are of high enough quality to count as sources. Could you please address this? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect as suggested by nom. Not enough sources to support a standalone article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 22 May 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 J. P. Dutta. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarhad (film)

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

Fails

WP:NFILM. Although no sources to claim the existence of film. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Mid Day article Sarhad was the directorial debut of J. P. Dutta. This film does exist but hasn't been released for the past 40+ years. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) feminist 05:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Taalismaan

Taalismaan (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)

Nominating the film for deletion as it do not hold the significance as well as shelved for good. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No indication that this can meet
    WP:GNG.AllyD (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Hut 8.5 20:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pappy

Young Pappy (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)

While tragic, all the press is related to his shooting, which would be a case of

WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 02:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the content/article in the current form doesn't belong here. —SpacemanSpiff 02:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasters' rights under copyright law

Broadcasters' rights under copyright law (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)

Wikipedia is not a directory of statutes, nor is it a place to list case law or legal outcomes. Per

WP:NOTESSAY, this article has no place on Wikipedia Exemplo347 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As noted below, the US article is but one example of the articles we already have on this topic. A comparative analysis of differences and similarities between the laws of these two countries might be worth exploring - but there's no real way to do that in an encyclopedic manner, within our rules. We don't analyze here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should retain this page as it is a comparative analysis of US law and Indian Law. It is written in encyclopedia-style and from a neutral point of view. The page does not simply state the statutory provisions and case laws, but provides information about broadcaster's rights under Indian and US law. Even though there is a page on US copyright law, broadcaster's rights is a neighbouring right which is separate from the rights of the copyright owner. Thus, this article satisfies the requirement of notability as the topic is worthy of research. Srishti Singhania (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, what is stated here is an argument for importance, not an argument for notability. The
notability guidelines say little, if anything, about important fields of study. Topics "worthy of research" are researched by professionals outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia only reports the consensus of professional results if there are independent, reliable sources indicating significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • In response to the discussion going on, I would like to submit the following:
1. This article is on definitely a notable' topic. By notability, Wikipedia refers something as 'worthy of notice'. Broadcaster organisations' right is worthy of notice. In many jurisdictions, it is becoming a heavily litigated aspect of law.
2. It cannot be included in the same page as Copyright under US or Copyright under India law, as
(a) it is one of the neighbouring rights, distinct from the rights of copyright owners.
(b) This topic has its own set of controversies, and interpretations, that take heavily from technology and media industry.
3. In my quest to keep this page as neutral, I have limited my engagements with the arguments in this area of study. I have mentioned the important rights, the scope of rights, their exceptions and the important case laws.
Moreover, in consonance with the Wikipedia aim, I believe with eventual contributions and edits, this page will indeed be at a better position. I myself is engaging in editing the same. Yashasvi.law (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note We already have articles that cover this material at
    WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a textbook, directory, or a place for essays. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This falls under
    talk) 05:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You really think Wikipedia is a place for "Compare and Contrast" essays - complete with a conclusion? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page should be reformatted to bring it more in line with the manual of style. It should also include more worldwide examples and not just the US/India. Those are solvable quality issues and don't warrant a deletion. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're not correct here. This essay should be deleted (start it again from scratch if you want to, per
WP:TNT) because it's a blatant example of what Wikipedia is not. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:24, 25 May 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Retail Academy

Fashion Retail Academy (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)

Appears to be a small non notable commercial organisation. Unaffiliated and with no evidence of any notability, this appears to be simple advertising. Does not benefit from assumed notability for schools - this is a commercial company. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are a government funded academy that provide free education for under 18's, 92% of our students go into employment or further education. We are listed on the gov website: https://www.gov.uk/check-a-university-is-officially-recognised/listed-bodies. Our charity number is: 1119540 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofralondon (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hello, the argument above from
    notability criteria for organizations and companies. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as org spam with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Genuine college preparing for degrees, though an established university issues them, as for a great many college in UK-associated systems. It doesn't mater whether a college is non-profit or profit--why should it? We have always kept them, unless they are too 1promotional to rewrite. This was promotional , but I rewrote it. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be in line with many other small colleges that have articles. Somebody should add the college's enrollment numbers and more about its history but those are just article quality issues. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per recent article improvements and as a degree college. If kept, I would suggest protecting the article due to COI / SPA editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 27 May 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

(non-admin closure) feminist 05:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Gnop!

Gnop! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find video game sources: "Gnop!" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails

WP:PRODUCT for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only sources that I could find were passing mentions in a couple of books. - MrX 19:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Mayor Cupcake

Mayor Cupcake (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)

Film does not appear to satisfy WP:NFP. I found 2 local newspaper articles on the film, one from the area that it was shot in, the other reflecting most of what the original article stated. The majority of mentions are retailers selling the movie. Perhaps should just be a mention on Lea Thompson's page, if it isn't already. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: DVD Talk, which seems to be treated as a reliable source, reviewed the film here. CHUD.com also reviewed it here but I am less sure if that is reliable. There are a few other reviews listed here but none that I recognize as reliable. Then again, I do not work with direct-to-video films often. NinjaRobotPirate, you may know more than me. Have any insights? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alex Pires#Mayor Cupcake. A standalone article isn't merited, and it's covered in the article on the film's writer/producer/director (and can be expanded there should coverage be found). Rotten Tomatoes lists no professional reviews, and this was the best coverage I found. --Michig (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, a few sites that used to review low-budget independent films have closed, making it harder to establish notability for direct-to-video films. I'd consider DVD Talk a reliable source, but CHUD.com is pushing it. I did find a few sources, though. There's this short review from The Mercury. There's also a bit of production info from this article at The News Journal and this article from Delaware Today. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 22 May 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 Insane Championship Wrestling. History left in place in case someone wants to merge something. SoWhy 07:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dallas

Mark Dallas (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 person, relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's an important figure in ICW and has a fair amount of coverage. His article needs to focus a bit more on himself but its understandable that it would include a lot about ICW due to his heavy involvement with it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 07:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to ICW per Nikki311. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ICW, not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 02:53, 31 May 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. Pure cruft Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pundits on Fighting Talk

Pundits on Fighting Talk (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)

Original research. Overly specific anyway. "Pundit" is a slang term, and anything on here would be OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR/fancruft/GNG failure Spiderone 07:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:33, 30 May 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. SoWhy 06:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Blood

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

Fails

WP:BIO. Most mentions are statements in a case about a restraining order. This does not, however, rise to "significant coverage"-levels required. Kleuske (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Mr. Blood has been cited in hundreds of publications due to a current matter relating to his client Karrueche Tran. Upon Googling "Patrick Blood Karrueche" and finding many results, this does rise to "significant coverage". Perhaps more citations needed but this is significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAmericanIdol (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches revealed many passing mentions (most as "X's other lawyer") in articles about a celeb-spat. That does not establish notability. What is needed is "significant coverage" and I haven't found any. Kleuske (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Google searches sometimes mention a co-counsel named Michelle Trigger but in the Google results, Mr. Blood has been quoted on this high publicity matter on almost every major celebrity/entertainment website covering this (E, HollywoodLife, New York Daily News, just to name a few). There does appear to be significant coverage. Further, as the former Vice President of a major entertainment company makes him a well known entertainment and celebrity attorney. I would recommend that in light of the foregoing that 'significant coverage' has been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAmericanIdol (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, being quoted about someone else does not constitute coverage of him. Being VP of a company just makes him good at his job, it doesn't make him encyclopedically notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for a view that merely being quoted repeatedly in the press is not enough to push one past the
    WP:GNG, if those quotes pertain to another topic. Of the sources out there where Blood is mentioned, none of them are primarily about Blood, which is what we look for. This doesn't mean that he's not a decent person or not good at his job, but we need substantial and independent sources if we hope to write a decent and impartial biography on someone. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:11, 2 June 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_May_22&oldid=1142223953"