Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 May	31 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. So Why 12:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Lambert

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

Looks to be largely the product of original research, and though it has a lot of citations, all of them that I checked named the subject in passing (and often were Primary sources, which per

WP:PLUG/vanity page. Agricolae (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its self promotion. If he is truly notable someone independant of him will write up a new page. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are all relevant to the individual. DarrylOwens (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— DarrylOwens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia on this, your first ever edit. Please note that passing reference does not established

WP:Original Research, which is prohibited. Agricolae (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

[reply]

~~Is there evidence that the subject created the page or edited content? NormaMarkam (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormaMarkam (talk • contribs)~~

— NormaMarkam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And welcome to you as well, NormaMarkam, on your first ever contrinution to Wikipedia. Is there a reason you signed your contribution as DarrylOwens? Agricolae (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I coped and pasted from the last edit, my mistake:) still learning syntax NormaMarkam (talk 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]~~

Keep Thanks for helping with my syntax, however, I must disagree with you
WP:Original Research tag. Wikipedia seems to define Original Research as- The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] I have looked over the subject page and can see no evidence of facts, allegations, and ideas that are not reliably sourced. NormaMarkam (talk 15:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Taking a picture of a person with a celebrity, uploading that picture, then citing the picture as a source for the statement that the subject often hangs with celebrities - that is quintiscential Original Research. The list of organizations to which the subject belongs, that is all unsourced. Original Research (unless it is outright invention). That he has a daughter, citing a page on the baby that doesn't name the parents? That is original research. When it says "Lambert sold his interests in Compound and moved to Thailand in 2006" it cites a news item that doesn't name Lambert and doesn't name Thailand. That is Original Research. When it says "Following a year break, Lambert moved to Sydney, Australia in 2007. Lambert met Kingsley Smith (founder of Kingsley's Restaurant Group) and formed & led the IPO" the cited source says nothing about a year off, nothing about moving to Sydney, nothing about meeting Kingsley Smith, and nothing about an leading an IPO. When it says "Lambert is a Master's candidate at Harvard Extension School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pursuing a Masters of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies (ALM)- Management" it cites a page for the school program that doesn't name Lambert or what degree he is pursuing. For a genealogical section I have since deleted, it actually cited an ancestry.com search result. It says "After an injury to his eye ended his military career, Lambert earned a position as an Investment Banking analyst with SunTrust in the restaurant capital group. Following two years in the group, Lambert focused his recently acquired talents in hospitality analysis into the operations side of the hospitality industry. His career started as the General Manager at the Tongue & Groove nightclub in Atlanta in 2001." and the cited source says nothing about Lambert, nothing about an eye injury, nothing about him being an investment banker, nor SunTrust, nothing about spending two years in that role, nothing about talent or hospitality analysis, nothing about him being General Manager of Tongue & Groove. I could go on. Rather than being documented, this article is just decorated, and amounts to a whole lot of unverifiable synthesis, in its entirety. Agricolae (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Addition when I read about WP:PLUG I see that it may have been used out of context. I can see no evidence of Self Promotion, whose main underpinning is autobiographical references, which upon following each subject reference, I see none that are autobiographical in nature- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

"Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." NormaMarkam (talk 15:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to who actually wrote the article, but given that the same editor who input most of the text also claims to have taken the pictures, all the way back to when he was in the service, and seems to know personal details not found in any of the sources, there is every appearance of WP:COI, particularly given the similarity between their User name and the eCommerce company the subject operates. (And I have yet to see 'look at all of the pictures of random person X with celebrities' presentations that don't originate with the subject of the photographs, or under their influence.) Agricolae (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NormaMarkam and DarrylOwens obviously have a connection to the subject and are connected to one another. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: NormaMarkham and DarrylOwens are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thebitsyboutique.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the coi, socking, and obvious promo intent, this subject fails
WP:GNG upon closer examination of sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete reeks of blatant self promotion. Perhaps the only claim to notability is being CFO. But that is of a non notable company. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 5 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. So Why 12:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Burn (politician)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/James Burn (politician)

James Burn (politician) (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 an individual who is simply a local councillor who ran for a regional mayoralty and failed to retain their deposit in that election. The articles in the page are not articles which confer individual notability on to the subject. The subject is incidental to those articles. As such the subject fails the
notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither borough councillors nor non-winning mayoral candidates are deemed to pass
WP:ROUTINE, because everybody who was ever a candidate in any election anywhere could always show that much coverage. To earn a Wikipedia article, people at this level of significance have to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance — but nothing here shows that at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non notable local politician, fails
WP:NPOL. Yintan 23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
do not see that consensus changing anytime soon. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete Green Party politicians being elected is fairly rare in most countries, so if there was something relating to that point that could be added, this piece might nudge just above notability requirements. Until that point though, he unfortunately is not significant enough to warrant an article. South Nashua (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's not the Mayor. Fails
WP:POLOUTCOMES. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as fails to pass the bar for N Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 7 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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 06:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Thin Red Line (album)

The Thin Red Line (album) (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)

~~Unsourced since creation.~~
~~WP:NALBUM Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator post Bearian's additions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, not Bearian...no big worry, just clarifying. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Wrong bear-themed user name. Apologies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As this is an album from the 1980s, finding electronic versions of the press that the album received would be difficult. However a search on google books gives us Is This Live?: Inside the Wild Early Years of MuchMusic by Christopher Ward, Music Express: The Rise, Fall & Resurrection of Canada's Music Magazine and Please Allow Me to Introduce Myself: Essays on Debut Albums among others. You have to search using "The Thin Red Line" +Glass Tiger, not "The Thin Red Line (album)". You get more hits across the board with this change, which indicates there's even more out there not available digitally. The album passes WP:NALBUM and it's very easy to find info on chart and sales successes (it charted well and sold well per WP:NALBUM and this can be verified through Billboard and here). It was a major label release and spawned two major hit songs, and with the handful of books I found, plus Billboard it passes WP:GNG. Sources can be added and lacking sources is not a valid reason to delete. freshacconci (✉) 21:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Obviously notable under the standards generally applied to albums. In addition to the material cited by freshacconci, this album received a best album nomination at the 1986 Juno Awards, and yielded a best new artist nomination for the band at the Grammys. [1][2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Arxiloxos. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an album that was released in 1986, which means the sources needed to get it over
WP:GNG would not be expected to show up on Google. However, this is the debut album by a band who were massive in their heyday, which spawned an iconic Top 10 single and at least two other more moderate hits that still to this day show up on the Jack FMs of the world once in a while (I already have a "Someday" earworm just from seeing its title, and that wasn't even the megahit) — and as noted, it got a Juno Award nomination for Album of the Year as well. So the notability is quite plainly there, and the sources needed to repair this most certainly do exist — but as expected for a 30-year-old topic, they'll be found in databases rather than open web. I have a course to attend today, so I can't tackle this right away, but I'll take a spin through ProQuest when I get home this evening. Bearcat (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:V for these points, as well as the ones made by Freshacconci I agree would support notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Seven sources added so far from ProQuest, along with one that merely had to be pulled over from the band's article. More are coming as well — I can confirm that the album charted in RPM's album charts, as I get four pages of search results in the RPM database for it. For some reason, however, the actual chart PDFs aren't loading, so I can't verify the peak chart position yet (unfortunately, the database is stupidly structured, so the only way to actually find that is to check each individual chart one by one until you've manually determined the highest position it reached.) Those will be added once I can get through 404land. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RPM chart history now added and sourced. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 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 Speedy delete under A7. Hut 8.5 20:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheMightyGamer7

TheMightyGamer7 (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)

Made a page about himself, without any references. Does not appear to be notable. El cid, el campeador (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was correctly tagged for speedy deletion about a minute before this AFD was opened. Uncle Roy (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 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 no consensus.
(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Owen McPolin

Owen McPolin (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. Lack of. TheLongTone (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I see at least half a dozen references in Google Books, which all seem to be a paragraph or more. Unfortunately they are all in snippet view. St Anselm (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article reveals nothing exceptional in his career. This means the question is whether ran Apostolic Prefect is a jigh enough post to be notable without more. Not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As Apostolic Prefect, he was the head of a diocese which would later be headed by an archbishop, and is thus listed with the bishops on the diocese web page [3]. He has some coverage, as StAnselm points out, in English language religious literature. I found and added info from two webpages with brief profiles about him in Korean (as "임 오웬"), but I'm not sure this is the best transliteration of his name and wonder if more information could be found about him in that language. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - held a then minor office; nothing to indicate notabilty. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 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 no consensus. No consensus after two relistings.
(non-admin closure) f e minist 00:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Charlie Heat

Charlie Heat (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)

Marginal example of a not-yet-notable composer/producer; assertions and claimsseem to be in conflict with
WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS, since he does not appear to be notable in his own right Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
WP:GNG, albiet not as much detailed coverage as i would like. But there is some. I have added several citatiosn and a critical response section to the article. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that in the music field
WP:MUSICBIO #6 also says: "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." That is pretty much pure inherited notability, in a guideline. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

comment - DES: do the Grammy databases list Heat as the nominee; or did he just work on an album that was nominated? I've noticed a tendency to treat anybody who ever touched a project, from the singer to the session musicians to the producer(s) to the sound engineer, as "Grammy-nominated" if the project gets a nomination (it seems to be worse in music than anywhere else). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reasonable question, and I am not entirely sure of the answer. I can say that his name was included in the track list of a nominated album, and that a source (now cited in the article) says that he "received three grammy noms for his work" on the album. That is a bit more than being the sound engineer. I still maintain that even without the award nom, this passes the GNG, although I would prefer a few better sources to the more numerous but less detailed ones that I have found so far.DES ^(talk) 00:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only Kanye is named on the Grammy page listing the nomination for The Life of Pablo. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because he is "an extra". But, I think it needs mentioned - as more and more entities move all content to the internet (including legitimate sources that allow for paid ads that look like articles), that WP really needs to step their game up with what does and does not qualify. This subject may meet the requirements simply based on the fact that there are enough "sources" that mention his name. Kellymoat (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - mere mentions do not qualify a subject; sources must contain substantial discussion of the subject, not merely mention them in a table or list, or contain a single sentence that calls out their name. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 00:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:18, 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
talk) 17:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Ravn Alaska destinations

Ravn Alaska destinations (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
talk) 18:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from that delsort list. It is already included in the Alaska list, of which the US list is the "parent".
talk) 20:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Every thorough airline article of which I'm aware has a section for "destinations", and most of these lead to a spinoff article with a complete list. For example
Delta Air Lines destinations, etc. Category:Lists of airline destinations contains 439 such lists (plus a few more in subcategories). Why delete this one at the cost of completeness, just because the airports are smaller than usual? --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Those others should probably go as well. The issue isn't the size of the airports, it's the appearance of Wikipedia becoming a sales catalog for these airlines. Explaining what region they operate in and where the hubs are is more than sufficient information for a general-knowledge encyclopedia. Listing every destination crosses over into a catalog.
talk) 21:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations, also a group nomination of all such lists, kept in 2007. There are probably others. postdlf (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I must admit I was unaware of those previous discussions. I think AFD might not be the correct forum and a broader RFC may be in order. Therefore I withdraw this nomination and since nobody else has commented in favor of deletion we can call it a speedy keep.
talk) 17:48, 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 delete. So Why 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Boutique Hotel

Olive Boutique Hotel (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:CORP. created by a one edit User with booking.com and tripadvisor as sources it looks suspiciously like an advert. Gnews comes up with same named hotel in Puerto Rico which may be notable LibStar (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non notable business using Wikipedia for free advertising . No secondary independent sources except trip advisor and booking sites as references. Ajf773 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plainly promotional and non-notable with no RS's. --Lockley (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meets none of the criteria for an article. User should consider adding to Wikivoyage instead. Greenman (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 6 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) Jupitus Smart 17:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Soccer War (book)

The Soccer War (book) (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 evidence of any notability for this book. The only reference has a void URL and can't be checked. Searches yield nothing of any merit. Fails
WP:GNG Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 16:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Massive number of laudatory reviews, here's the new archive search I ran [4]. the archive is behind a paywall, I don't know it that search can be seen by editors without access to Proquest. But in all events, the book is notable, article needs to be sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many reviews come up on a simple google search of Kapuściński + "the soccer war" [5]. Same search on gNews [6]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And stuff like this [7]. Article needs an editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets
WP:NBOOK, plenty of review available including Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, Library Journal Bamboo by William Boyd, London Review of Books. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Passes
WP:GNG: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] (subscription required). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 6 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 and redirect to
iff required. So Why 12:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

You Gotta Not (Little Mix song)

You Gotta Not (Little Mix song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Probably fails
WP:NSONGS, was redirected by Livelikemusic last week under that rationale. A few blogs (but no major publications) covered this on its release as a promotional single. It did, however, chart (at number 61 in the UK; and in two other countries). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Raritydash (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. livelikemusic talk! 01:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable here. Ss 112 03:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others. --Lockley (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
talk) 10:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to ~~Get Weird~~ to Glory Days seems appropriate or delete per above comments. I would be fine with either decision. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Get Weird. Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Do you mean redirect to Glory Days? Because that is a song from "Glory Days", not "Get Weird". Raritydash (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support redirection to Glory Days (Little Mix album) + page protection. Pinging Aoba47 and Carbrera. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out for me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect - Fails NSONG, redirect to the album. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:31, 6 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 redirect to Spindrift (band). Delete !votes do not preclude the option of redirecting, so that's what I'm going to do. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Hansen

Zachary Hansen (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 member of some local bands (the only one with its own article,
conflict of interest. Camerafiend (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability, and very likely promotional, per nom. --Lockley (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:ATD-R. I cannot find anything establishing his notability as an individual but his name might be a useful search term and he is mentioned on the band's page. Regards So Why 12:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Spindrift (band) as suggested by SoWhy. Not enough independent notability to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 7 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. So Why 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Capital Management

Excel Capital Management (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 evidence of notability. Relevant references are peripheral mentions or blogs, often written by the organisation itself or by its staff. Nothing here convinces me about notability. Fails
WP:GNG Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 13:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 00:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete doesn't meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 6 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. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Tracy

Lil Tracy (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 hip-hop artist with coverage only in passing mention, blogs and otherwise non-rs and article sourced almost entirely to soundcloud and YouTube. In fact, the most significant coverage I can find of Tracy is in reference to him pissing off a former KKK leader. May be a case of
WP:TOOSOON CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete : Per nomination. Fails
WP:MUSICBIO Coderzombie (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is too soon. He was featured on a couple of tracks that got Pitchfork reviews ([15], [16]), and he garnered a paragraph in this article, but that's about all the coverage I can find at this point. He may get there but I don't think he has yet. Camerafiend (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might be a case of
WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 7 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. Since an AFD has been opened for the other page, I'll let what happens there happen. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IV Life...

IV Life... (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 album by non-notable musician. When the only half-reasonable reference I can find is a Huffpo piece, it should probably be deleted as
A9, but that's already been contested, hence why we're here. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

(Speedy) delete the fact that notable artists appeared on this album doesn't nullify the fact that the artist does not have his own page. If I were the creator I would have started with the artist's page and then moved on his albums. Domdeparis (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

still Speedy Delete it because the artist does not have their own page and therefore it fits one of the CSDs exactly. I appreciate the note on my talk page about the decline and that Primefac beat me to nominating it here. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not eligible for speedy deletion. A9 requires that there be no claim of significance, and contributions by multiple notable artists is enough of a claim of significance to survive A9. A9 is a special exception to A7's exclusions; the lack of a claim of significance is the important criterion; the lack of an artist article comes into play only when there is no claim of significance. It's not a balancing matter, any valid claim of significance "outweighs" the absence of an artist article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixtape, so none of the other artists did anything to make the tape. Legacypac (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you appear here following my contribs?Winged Blades^Godric 11:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wings tagged it CSD. Wolfowitz removed the tag, then posted here. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:--Prob. you mis-understood my question due to the wrong indentation.This was meant for Hullaballoo.See our recent interactions!Winged Blades^Godric 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Godric replaced a speedy after it had been declined already, a generally improper editing practice I've been addressing for years. My comment here is mostly directed to Domdeparis's !vote above, which seriously misconstrues speedy deletion standards. But I don't expect much beyond groundless abuse from an editor who labelled me a "half-literate myopic" on my talk page this morning. As for Legacypac's substantive point, at this point the article claims this is a legitimate album with a number of notable guest performers, and that's the claim speedy proposals are measured against. If the claim isn't transparently false, but requires investigation, it's not speediable. That's why obvious hoaxes can be speedied, but clever ones go to AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've found and added the sister album The Glass Ceiling Project to the nomination as it is the same artist, same issues exactly. Ping previous voters User:Primefac, Guy Macon,talk, and CSD tagger Godric please confirm your vote for the other page. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed it. I can understand the intention, but it's just procedurally bad timing. It's one thing to add a second page a day or two after the nomination was created, but it's another to add a new page to a week-old discussion and force it to be relisted. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Had not realized we were so close to a week. I've nom'd the other page here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Glass_Ceiling_Project Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both, if enough former !voters come back and endorse the addition by Legacypac. Fails
WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Both for the same reasons posted previously. Should we put an AfD notice pointing here on the new page? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This might be an IAR situation, because we're already at the IAR stage by adding a page a week later. Adding a notice and then deleting the page an hour or two later (which is likely, given that there are only 12 old open AFDs) seems rather pointless. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nom'd the sister page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Glass_Ceiling_Project Guy Macon talk talk, and CSD tagger Godric Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 7 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. So Why 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebio Martinelli

Eusebio Martinelli (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 do not think the career as reported here shows notability as either WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE. I declined a speedy, because the recordings and book are a claim to some significance. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No claim to notability. --Lockley (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass
WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete doesn't meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 6 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Kacper Laskoś

Kacper Laskoś (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. Before someone argues that he passes (or not) Wikipedia:Notability (sports), let me quote from that policy: "Q: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. ". So unless we can show he meets GNG, well, NOSTATS etc. Meeting NSPORTS or not is about as irrelevant as whether he has a Polish Wikipedia article (which incidentally he does not have, too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets
fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 21:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
And the little part about him failing GNG and NFOOTBALL defaulting to GNG...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes
fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Having played in the Polish top flight, he meets
WP:NFOOTY, and given his age does not meet the usual criteria for ignoring that guideline when only just met. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: per
WP:NFOOTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 3 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. So Why 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafal Hanusowski

Rafal Hanusowski (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)

200+ google hits, nothing in news, no significant awards/descriptions of works,
WP:CREATIVE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that the subjects meets any of the notability criteria in
talk) 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – badly referenced blp with no significant coverage in news or books, fails
WP:CREATIVE. — Quasar G. 09:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case of
WP:CREATIVE for now. No prejudice for recreation in future in case more notability is established. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:10, 7 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. So Why 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nessex

Nessex (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
WP:GNG. 24.9.98.30 (talk
) 1:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 05:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage seems very niche. Seems to fail
WP:MUSICBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as non-notable per nom. Edit history of original editor shows promotional, um, motive. --Lockley (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 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 no consensus. Merge proposals etc. may be evaluated at talk page.
(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

2017 Lesotho Defence Force helicopter crash

2017 Lesotho Defence Force helicopter crash (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)

To quote the person who Proded this article- "No evidence that this accident is noteworthy for a stand-alone article, helicopter crashes are not rare particularly military operated ones. Really needs to be the cause of death of a wiki notable person or another notable feature to have an article." This crash is tragic but not notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article, and as I explained on its talk page, I fail to see where we have an explicit requirement that such articles need to be 'the cause of death of a wiki notable person or another notable feature' - that seems vague to say the least. If you look at our 2017 and 2016 articles for aircraft incidents, you will see quite a few that are just AS notable as this one. I understand why private planes and helicopters don't fit the shoe, but in this case it's a country with a very small air force, and one where accidents don't generally happen that often, so there is some notability to it IMO. The other articles serve as a precedent, so unless there is a specific rule that I am missing, we either have to enforce the same rules to all older articles and lose a LOT of them, or come up with some sort of compromise. Just my two cents. Skycycle (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is
WP:Other stuff exists); however it being a country with a very small air force counts as another notable feature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
As Hawkeye7 stated - see
WP:AIRCRASH. As these being part of the Lesotho Defence Force - sorry, I don't see how this counts for much. The Lesotho air wing is really just a general aviation wing that isn't expected to carry out any role in a war (As Lesotho is landlocked and surrounded completely by the much larger South Africa - in any conceivable military conflict with South Africa, aviation wouldn't last for more than a day (the ground forces might do marginally better, and might be able to put up an irregular/guerrilla campaign afterwards) - it might carry out some role in an irregular conflict with local rebels, but otherwise seems to be mostly geared for regular governmental transport - it is borderline itself for an article (which it doesn't have - is included with Lesotho Defence Force - a small organization overall - as per article 3,100 personnel). Being part of a marginal, non-useful (in any organized international conflict, possible use vs. internal rebels), military of a marginal country - doesn't make this crash more notable than others - if at all less notable. Police helicopters crash all the time - if the crash isn't notable in terms of damage on the ground, specific fatalities (notable victims), or a large amount of victims (e.g. a Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion or Boeing CH-47 Chinook which can lead to a high double-digit body count) - it isn't notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep The crash of an aircraft belonging to a very small air force which resulted in multiple fatalities is likely to have lasting notability. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Nick-D's comment the incident had a big impact on Lesotho's airforce and with the investigation ongoing there is a strong possibility the content of the article will be expanded soon. If the final discussion here is more leaning twords delete than keep, I'd advise the closing admin to please consider a Mergeing of the content of this article to the Lesotho Defence Force. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant ongoing coverage, just news reports and then silence concerning the subject. It might be worth mentioning in the Lesotho Defence Force article (and I am not sure that it should be), but it certainly doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. YSSYguy (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my statement when I proposed deletion "No evidence that this accident is noteworthy for a stand-alone article, helicopter crashes are not rare particularly military operated ones. Really needs to be the cause of death of a wiki notable person or another notable feature to have an article." Nothing has emerged since that shows anything noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no societal impact or lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 12 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 15:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per
WP:AIRCRASH, it is nevertheless brief, well written and appears adequately referenced. Whilst I'm unaware of any policy encouraging comparison of short factual articles like this one with innumerable and lengthy ones about trivial fictional characters or C-grade social media personalities, I think it just about stands up to scrutiny against them. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 15:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or better Merge the content of this article to the Lesotho Defence Force. I think some of the arguments for deletion have a big country bias. It is significant for a small country's defense forces to be sure but it is hard to see why a single helicopter crash should have an article of its own. It will have a proper context in the Lesotho Defense Force article Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lesotho Defence Force. It is a significant incident for the Lesotho Defence Force, but doesn't require its own article. Better to move the contents.Seaweed (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per comments above
Nightfury 13:35, 6 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. czar 03:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stavrula Gotsis

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

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

There is some coverage here (which is why I declined the A7 speedy request) but other than that, I cannot find any substantial coverage about her (just some passing mentions in lists of physicians). Fails
WP:GNG. So Why 08:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I knew her personally and will be updating the article further with sources included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgvtornado (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I've looked high and low, and every source points back to the obituary you mentioned already. I just don't think she is notable, or even close to being notable. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too little information to support notability. The claim that she was the first female plastic surgeon in Chicago is not confirmed by the Chicago Tribune obituary[18] (the only useful source) which has her down as "one of the first" female plastic surgeons in the area. JFW | T@lk 13:57, 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 redirect to
(non-admin closure) f e minist 00:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikimedia project

Wikimedia project (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 really doesn't seem like a notable topic on its own, especially when articles for the Wikimedia Foundation and all its reader-facing projects exist. Half of the article is about language codes. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a lower-quality duplicate of content at Wikimedia Foundation and List of Wikipedias. (This article's layout is poorer and sourcing is mainly to technical documents.) Might be redirected to Wikimedia Foundation but I'm not sure if that would be useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge Where appropriate. Some of it here, some of it to Meta. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge: Wikimedia Foundation seems like a good destination GretLomborg (talk) 04:56, 6 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. So Why 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wojtek Goral

Wojtek Goral (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 have hard trouble seeing how this person passes
WP:MUSICBIO, through maybe someone more versed in Swedish than me can review the sources better. What I see seems to be mostly niche/in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can not find anything that would constitute non-trivial coverage. The sources are mostly limited to mentioning him as an accompanying saxophonist, not enough to constitute significant coverage. The only longer article that mentions him more than once is from Borås Tidning and even that is mostly about his father, with a few statements about Wojtek, virtually all of them quoted from him directly and thus can not constitute independent coverage. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail
WP:GNG as a non-notable musician. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:39, 3 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. So Why 11:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Arthur Jones

Jean Arthur Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not receive reliable secondary coverage, nor are his awards noteworthy enough for an article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Award-winning, right. My search for "Irina Ratushinskaya Freedom Book Award" couldn't find any description of the award, nor a homepage, just few mentions in passing, seemingly all in relation to this person - which raises a question - is he its only recipient? Veers close to
WP:CREATIVE, and the abysmally low level of sourcing on him makes it possible this is a hoax. In either case, this is a great illustration of abuse of the term "award-winning" :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, the "2005... LizBeth poetry award from the zine" doesn't seem to exist. There is no LizBeth poetry award according to Google and the "zine" is a broken link to an apparently unrelated webpage.
talk) 11:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 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. So Why 11:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–North Korea relations

Estonia–North Korea relations (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 relies on stringing factoids to somehow imply a notable topic. Whilst no formal relations is not a reason for deletion, the interactions are tangential. for example:

Estonia has been an independent country since its declaration in 1918 before being illegally annexed into the Soviet Union in 1940. Later, the Estonian government-in-exile was formed in 1953 to handle diplomatic matters how does this relate to relations with North Korea?

United Nations Conference on Disarmament, Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet condemned the recent nuclear test. you'll find almost every Western country condemns north korea on testing.

After the Sony Pictures hacking, the 2014 film, The Interview was banned in all of Estonian cinemas. ACME Film representative Elna-Eva Terasmäe said that Sony Pictures was the victim of an unprecedented criminal action, which negative affected employees, customers and the company itself is really barrel scraping for actual interaction between the countries. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apparently there are no official relations, and the unofficial relations appear trivial. Given the small size of Estonia and the great distance between the countries this shouldn't be seen as surprising. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only reasonable connection is if NATO tangled with DPRK someday. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 7 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. So Why 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Higuchi

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

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

Delete: This article was likely
WP:BEFORE did not find any further progression in the subject's career. The external links are multiple copies of the identical press release from 2012. (One is now a dead link.) The young lady has a YouTube channel, with 33 subscribers. Scottyoak2 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. " In 2014, Higuchi plans to release her debut album". No updates since. This sub-stub draft could be moved to user's namespace for development, but nothing suggests it belongs in the mainspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and please don't clutter userspace with non-notable stuff. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 7 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 speedy deletion (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf-Boy

Wolf-Boy (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)

Clearly non-notable 16-year-old, only his own social media as links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible CSD A7): A
WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 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 redirect to
(non-admin closure) f e minist 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Jack Moore (guitarist)

Jack Moore (guitarist) (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 sufficiently notable on his own as per WP:GNG. Being the son of guitarist doesn't cut it either - as per
WP:NOTINHERITED. Whilst there are media reports of him playing at his fathers funeral, this material does not support his notability, and seems best placed in the Gary Moore article, where there is already a mention of these facts. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
WP:GNG on its own. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect there is hardly enough to merge to Gary Moore that is not already mentioned - plays guitar and is recorded as being a guest guitarist at some concerts. Not notable enough. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack moore posted a video on Facebook of him playing the guitar which received nearly 500 thousand views, and nearly 40k likes and almost 8k shares. His facebook page grew from 11k likes to 20k likes as a result. He then posted a video of him playing Albatross which received nealy 100k views showing Jack Moore has a very large fan base. Even Thin Lizzy are sharing his posts.
The performance at the funeral is not what is making Jack a notable guitarist. Its the hundreds of thousands of views and shares of his songs on social media. https://www.facebook.com/jackmooremusicuk/videos/1483364181714797/ --JodyCollinsBAhons (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:09, 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 redirect to
(non-admin closure) f e minist 05:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Bob Manning (musician)

Bob Manning (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Fails
NMUSICIAN. ToThAc (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:MUSICBIO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Cold, cold heart. He is not individually notable, but the band probably is so. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:09, 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 redirect to
(non-admin closure) f e minist 01:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

La Salle College Athletics Club

La Salle College Athletics Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Nominating despite a school/sports related article.
WP:NPOV issues and an external video link Devopam (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete No
WP:CCS. Domdeparis (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails
WP:NORG. Promotional only article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, or Merge with WP:CLUB. First, the club only participates in inter-school athletic activities at a local level (Hong Kong), which is hardly significant on a national or international level. Secondly, I have difficulties finding independent sources on the topic, Chinese or English. If necessary, the club's achievements can be summarized in neutral terms in the La Salle College article, under the section Sports.--Dps04 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Selective merge/redirect to La Salle College#Sports per Dps04 in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there's nothing to merge as the article does not list any 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 4 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 speedy delete.
G5: creation by a blocked user in violation of block or ban Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Rawat Mahila B.Ed. College

Rawat Mahila B.Ed. College (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)

advertisement for collage
talk) 08:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep We actually edit clashed because I was removing the bits that were a clear advert. I'll try to do it again - it's better to remove the inappropriate bits than delete an article on a university, which is almost definitely notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete even though wp policy states almost all colleges are de facto notable, this college is not included in these "almost all colleges". @Boleyn: A B.Ed. college is not a university. Even though it stands for Bachelor of Education, it is considered as a diploma. It is two year course of "how to teach kids". The creator has obvious COI. He created few articles related to Rawat groups. Nothing notable about this college. The content should be added in the city's article. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly fixed could now do with just more information. My alt nick is Daniel0Wellby_sch Daniel0wellby (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer please note this is a double !vote by the nominator. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable sub-unit of a larger university. De facto notability does not apply. No significant coverage found. James (^talk/_contribs)

@James Allison: it is not a sub-unit of a university. Universities are governing bodies in india. The college is affiliated to a university, that is, that particular university governs it. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Usernamekiran has quite nicely described the siutuation of B.Ed colleges.Winged Blades^Godric 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 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 Draftify.
(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Românii au talent (season 6)

Românii au talent (season 6) (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)

Insufficient information. Hiwilms (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 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 03:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify in the same way as Românii au talent (season 5) was at the same stage of completeness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 6 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 merge to Sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States. Most !voters agreed that this can be merged now that a suitable merge target exists. So Why 10:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rape tree

Rape tree (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 recreated after PROD deletion a month or two back. Sources are not reliable enough to confirm this as a notable concept. The first three are YouTube videos from vloggers, not clips from reliable sources. The next is Washington Post, but it's a blog, and the mention of the "rape tree" in it is a Tea Party activist's claim that "rape trees" exist. The blog quotes the activist's claim about rape trees and then follows up with a statement about "confirmed reports of migrant women’s rape by border “coyotes"," making it look like the rape trees claim is similarly confirmed - but it is not, at least not in the article.
The final source is a claim by a local sheriff alleging that trees marked by undergarments and condoms are commonly found along coyote routes and are intended as warnings to migrant women by coyotes. He states, "we discovered that those are rape trees," but from whom? There is no indication of where his information came from, and a local sheriff testifying about illegal immigration issues is about as far from a neutral, independent source as one can get.
Please don't take this AfD wrong; I'm not by any means disputing that women are sexually assaulted by coyotes taking advantage of their situation. I am disputing specifically and exclusively the concept of "rape trees" as a notable concept that should be covered in a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the term "rape tree" appears to be used by the "Minuteman" type movements, not by mainstream sources, nor by the smugglers/illegal immigrants themselves.
talk) 05:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment the appearance of the term in Congressional testimony, which is legit, makes it seem to me as if this is worthy of including in the encyclopedia. Bri (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources include (added 23 May):
Nationally and locally, civilian militias have a new look [originally published as The militia next door], Williams, Lee. Sarasota Herald-Tribune; Sarasota, Fla. [Sarasota, Fla] 23 Sep 2012: A.1. "While patrolling Arizona's Vekol Valley, Sawyer said the team found a "rape tree" in the desert, a macabre trophy created by the "coyotes" who smuggle aliens. Sawyer said that after a coyote rapes a woman in his group, he will hang her underwear on the tree."

The privilege of citizenship, Klayr Valentine-Fossum, The Knox Student, Knox College, Galesburg IL., April 2, 2009. "Rape is something that could not be ignored by our camp. Not but a 15 minute hike from where we were sleeping was a site of repeated sexual violence. It was called "the Rape Tree." The tree was located down in a wash, that is, in a dry riverbed, not visible from the bank above. You have to climb down into the wash to see it. Bras and underwear hang from the mesquite's branches. And underneath at the base of the tree were pressed down clothes, blankets and backpacks. This tree had become a symbol of domination; of the power a coyote has over the group."

The Watch, Fox, Lauren. U.S. News & World Report; Washington (Jul 2013): 1. "As they make their way around the heavy brush, they circle around a pile of women's undergarments, which lay at the foot of a tree. In sections of land near the US-Mexico border, this is known as a "rape tree.""

Your first source quotes someone claiming to have found such a tree, but does not indicate that the newspaper ever followed up on this claim or attempted to fact check the statement. Your second is student journalism, which again shows no indication of any fact-checking. "...a site of repeated sexual violence. It was called “the Rape Tree.”" By whom? When? Third source does seem to meet
WP:RSN, but again, I question the credibility of their facts in this case - it's all quotes from "border watch" people with no apparent follow-up or scrutiny. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The term "Rape tree" is being used in multiple news reports including Washington Post, congressional testimony, government officials (see the YouTube videos.) Perhaps the resolution to this dispute is the add a section to the article noting that the existence of "Rape trees" is disputed. FYI: I am editor who recreated the article.WSDavitt (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Artw (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - sources looks ok. The term is obviously used. BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing iVote to Delete or redirect, see below.
WP:NOTSOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This goes back to my meta question about what the purpose of this debate is. Determining that it is a term used in RSes with a reasonably complete definition is, I think, the point. "The existence of X" really shouldn't be the subject of a deletion debate.
WP:NOTTRUTH kind of makes your agonizing about whether RSes were correctly or incorrectly interpreting the Texas paramilitary group's claims, moot. Bri (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Indeed. This article makes a very big claim. Big claims require heavyweight proof. The evidence here is mere handful of news stories the best of which merely quote an individual law enforcement officer, border-zone rancher or political activist who asserting that a bra hung from a tree is an example of a "rape tree." There is a vibrant Spanish-language press on each side of that, not to mention the vibrant outlets for women's rights and anti-sexual abuse journalism. The question I keep asking myself is: If a story this dramatic is is real, why isn't there more media and better coverage????E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This scholarly author asks the same question. Johnson, Jennifer L. (2014), "Border granny wants you", in Nancy A. Naples; Jennifer Bickham Mendez (eds.), Border Politics: Social Movements, Collective Identities, and Globalization, NYU Press,
ISBN 9781479858170, in which the author states she "could not find a single academic reference" discussing rape trees, yet they are commonly discussed in the conservative blogosphere, and do profoundly affect attitudes and behavior on the southern U.S. border. - Bri (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:HEY any editor arguing Keep on the basis of the Congressional Testimony needs to establish that the individuals giving the information on these trees are recognized experts on the border and offer proof (after all, anybody a Congressman invites can testify, Sissy Spacek can testify about farming [22], that doesn't make her statement RS). But even if the testimony is valid, it is insufficient to establish NOTABILITY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Is the standard that the article has to be about an actual, notable phenomenon, or whether the public discussion of the phenomenon is in and of itself notable? I think the latter, which is why we have articles about mass delusions, legends, hoaxes, cryptids, etc. Which is why I brought up Congressional testimony. I don't care for the purposes of this debate whether the testimony was true or not, only that the venue itself gave it notability. - Bri (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is laid out at
WP:GNG.@Bri:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sounds pretty fringe. I have raised the matter at
WP:FTN. Artw (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the article is hopelessly biased under this title. The phenomenon isn't notable as an urban legend; as an actual phenomenon it should be at most a single paragraph in the controversy section on
talk) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"The argument is biased" is
WP:SURMOUNTABLE, not a valid reason to delete. Bri (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you want to reply to the rest of my argument?
talk) 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~. I added some sources to my comment above. So now in addition we have two very mainstream sources: a page-one regional newspaper and a page-one U.S. News & World Report story using the term and explaining what it is in detail. Good enouh for me. - Bri (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the USNews article mentioned by Bri [23]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting The U.S.. New article is written by a journalist who is being shown the border area by members of the "Texas Border Volunteers", and who show her a "rape tree." Yes, U.S. News goes with the story, but, no, the journalist doesn't have an evidence that it is a "rape tree" beyond the opinion of the Border Volunteers. To me, it looks as though what we have is a small media flurry around an appealing allegation about a group of criminals who exploit, abuse and abandon illegal border crossers to die in the desert. Maybe the y do advertise on rape trees. Pretty hard assertion to prove, though.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one does seem to be a bit more of a substantial mention than your other sources, though I've no idea if that publication meets the standard of
WP:RS. On matters of substantial import we probably shouldn't be using random news sites nobody has ever heard of before. Artw (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
We already have too many references, we don't need pointless arguments asking for more.
talk) 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The article as it stands is spammed with all kinds of refs, but If you subtract the low quality or insubstantial sources there are not really enough to support an article. Artw (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV and editors should stick to them. The sourcing on this article is a sort of red flag indicating that scholarly validation of the topic and quality investigative journalism does not exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The ginormous quotes probably need to go too, if we take it seriously as an article. Artw (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, although I did not mean to imply that it should be kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment about me needing to remove non reliable sources. If you are referring to Knox College's student-run newspaper, it may be an RS. Per RSN discussions (March 2017, October 2009, etc.), student newspapers may be RSes. I'd rather leave it for consideration. Bri (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A modicum of RS does appear to exist, but per GNG, there is insufficient substance to justify a standalone article. I would suggest incorporating it into the
Coyotaje article, as previously suggested. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~As nom I am open to merge & redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)~~ struck, see below for comment re: better M&R target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to
coyotaje.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. It's just not strong enough to merit a page, makes more sense to place it in the context of
Coyotaje which actually discusses the topic, and lose 'in popular culture' which as fiction has no relevance there. Mramoeba (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

comment if the keel argument is that this is worth covering as a piece of conservative mythology then
WP:TNT probably applies, since it isn't in the slightest covered that way at the moment. Artw (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:TNT is for "hopelessly unsalvageably" articles, usually either massive copyvio, or polluted by some kind of COI. Even articles created by undisclosed paid editors rarely fall into this category. I don't see how a four-paragraph article with multiple valid sources can be described this way. If you think it should be described as mythology then by all means add a statement to that effect, of course, backed up by RS. - Bri (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need just a statement, it (if kept) needs a full rewrite to make it clear that as far as all sources have indicated, it is an unproven allegation primarily linked to minuteman/borderwatch type movements, with no confirmation from any independent sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I added some info to the article. My research indicates that some people believe rape trees are "real," and other people believe that they are instead a fiction used to fuel an agenda. The sources I provided are books and are reliable sources. The congressional testimonies are also reliable. I'd rather that people searching for a topic like this find a neutral POV article on Wikipedia describing it. The material I added makes it clear that the claims are coming from a particular source and are most likely being used to create an agenda. I think that's sufficient. There's no reason to TNT the article. Improve it like I did if you are unhappy about it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge and Redirect to
Coyotaje is sort of related, but the sexual assaults are not the sole domain of the smugglers, and I would argue are not best covered as part of that article regardless. So I started a draft of sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States, and I would like to invite other editors to improve it. I don't even know that the title I chose is the best, but it seems like too important a subject for us only to cover in the coyotaje article or via "rape trees". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging AfD participants to see if this possibility changes your opinion: @
Power~enwiki, Bri, WSDavitt, Artw, BabbaQ, E.M.Gregory, DoctorJoeE, Mramoeba, and Megalibrarygirl: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

(edit conflict)This is a a much better merge & redirect target than coyotaje, I think. We can make mention of your article in the coyotaje article and then fully discuss the topic in its own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge and Redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States. This is a much better way to handle the topic! Kudos to Rhododendrites for putting the article together. The redirect is important, too, because like I wrote above, I want people finding neutral, reliably sourced information about topics like these. I've struck my keep since I agree it's a better fit for the new article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment currently the article has no inbound links, so I am not sure a redirect is really needed. Artw (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with selective redirect, merge to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States. I do think a redirect is useful, since this is a likely search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge/redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States per above - and thanks to Rhododendrites. Neutrality^talk 00:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge and redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States, the new article created by Rhododendrites which takes a much better approach than the existing article. "Rape trees" is a potential search term so a redirect is appropriate, but they are only a small aspect of the notable topic which Rhododendrites has identified. EdChem (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States as suggested by Rhododendrites and others (!vote changed). As long as substantial content is preserved this is fine. Bri (talk) 13:23, 5 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) Winged Blades^Godric 08:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Josh Sargent

Josh Sargent (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 does not fufill requirements of
WP:GANG Wolfmalfoy (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Article does not fufill requirements of [[WP:NFootball] or
WP:GANG. The subject of the article is an underaged athlete who has yet to sign a professional contract or play in a professional or senior national team match. The article was created in response to recent press coverage of the subject's performance in a youth tournament and there has not been widely spread coverage of the subject outside of this. The article is therefore inappropriate at this time.Wolfmalfoy (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - There are citations in this article dating back to at least 2016, so
WP:BLP1E is not an appropriate basis to delete. CUA 27 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This footballer fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Fbgpwns5277 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – he passes GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sargent clearly passes
talk) 22:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:GNG. Strange that the nominating editor's account is only 20 hours old with six edits primarily focused on .... Josh Sargent. Hmlarson (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Question for admins Does that seem typical of a brand new editor? (cc GiantSnowman)? Hmlarson (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, it's an account created only to nominate this article for deletion. Really strange.--
talk) 01:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: It has a lot of sources but looking at them, a few are just match reports and squad selection articles, two of them are "Five things you need to know" which can be done with any player, and some of the sources are not that reputable like the St. Louis soccer website. The only source that makes me believe he could be notable now is the one from US Soccer where he is the youngest scorer in the U20 World Cup but that is it and not enough in my eyes to see him as notable right now. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: Top Drawer; SI; S&S; Goal.com;--
talk) 19:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I can't make my mind up about this one, this individual has received a lot of coverage recently but most has been about his immediate recent performance and has probably been overhyped due to his age. Almost certainly
WP:GNG or not. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This footballer fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. --Soccer8295 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Response - Instead of merely providing a
WP:VAGUEWAVE at policy, perhaps you can explain why you believe that, despite the quantity and quality of sources, this article fails to meet WP:GNG? CUA 27 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow Keep per
SirEdimon. Quidster4040 (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Sargent reached another milestone. He joined
talk) 23:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - If there were some doubt before, the article more clearly now demonstrates that it meets
WP:GNG, as I've added a few citations and additional text. The article includes references to several reputable publications, both general media (Washington Post, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Sports Illustrated) and some of the more prominent national US soccer media (Goal, Soccer America). CUA 27 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article easily passes
WP:GNG with all of the sources cited. Nominator's behavior is also questionable at best. Smartyllama (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - meets
WP:GNG with sources in article. Nominator does indeed look odd. Created AFD last month as first edit. Made his last Wikipedia edit 14 minutes later, and hasn't been seen since! Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 6 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 Speedily deleted as
WP:CSD#G5 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Smooth) by K6ka.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Fierra fly

Fierra fly (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 has been speedy deleted six times under the titles
salted). The basic argument remains the same: he's just not notable as a musician and producer. The only coverage (actually simple instances of his name being mentioned) in reliable sources stems not from his work as an artist but from a dumb prank he pulled with a couple of friends. Pichpich (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, it's been brought to my attention that the problems about this topic have already resulted in multiple sockpuppetry blocks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Smooth. Pichpich (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5 as the loudest duck in the world. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis, TN 2000

Memphis, TN 2000 (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)

Live/archive album that relies entirely on band web pages. It lacks significant secondary sources. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage found in independent reliable sources; appears to fail
WP:NALBUM. gongshow  talk 06:14, 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 speedy keep.
(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris Griffin

Chris Griffin (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)

Am I the only one who thinks that this page should be merged into a redirect? Sure, he's a main character in one of the most iconic animated series, but the page hardly covers any out-of-universe notability, and a majority of sections or content is unsourced, save for the Creation and Development section. And after doing research I could hardly find any official sources or news coverages on the character that are noteworthy enough to warrant an article, or any at all for that matter; when typing the character's name (or "chris family guy") into Google News, most of the coverages deal with people who just happen to have the same name as him and have no affiliation with Family Guy whatsoever. The closest sources to real-word perspective of the character I could find were the coverages concerning him dating American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift in the episode "Chris Has Got a Date, Date, Date, Date, Date", but considering that it was only a one-time thing that didn't attract much impact, I don't find the information that sufficient to consider the character iconic, despite his series being such. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if an article about a fictional character doesn't have a Reception, Controversy, Criticism, or Cultural impact section, then does that automatically mean it should be merged into a redirect? SoapSoapWhatIsSoap (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character so meets
WP:GNG. Any questionable items can be marked with a CN tag. MarnetteD|Talk 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Please note The nom is now blocked and - considering their recent edits - IMO this is a bad faith nomination and could be "speedy kept" or even "spedy deleted" MarnetteD|Talk 02:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 02:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep Per above. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a joke nomination, right? DP76764 (Talk) 03:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
chatter) 03:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Characters of Family Guy. Just being a major character of a long running work does not create notability. We need secondary sources that talk about the character in depth beyond just reiterating plot details. That doesn't appear to exist to a significant degree to allow a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep as nomination was in bad faith. There are many more egregious cases of excessive in-universe details than this.
talk) 04:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Keep There are plenty of news and scholar entries for a better-narrowed Find Sources search. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked through several years of that narrower search and can't find any sign of in-depth coverage of the character, outside frequent mentions of being voiced by Seth Green (which is nowhere close to sufficient GNG detail). Just because there are ghits doesn't mean they're usable sources. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major character deserving of own article. Artw (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to be a bad faith nom from a now blocked user. Artw (talk) 06:27, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bellon

Richard Bellon (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)

Obvious hoax (see talk page). Was marked for speedy deletion as a hoax, but User:Uanfala has twice removed the tag, so here we are. Calton | Talk 02:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not certain whether it's a hoax or just puffery about a personal project on translation. Regardless, no claim of notability.
talk) 04:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- unsourced; possibly a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a hoax: the existence of a poet with this name is evident in the archived version of one of the two sources given in the article [24]. Now, whether the somewhat pompous claim of notability made about him is true, that's much less certain: this is sourced only to a personal blog, and as reported by
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi on the article's talk page, there seems to be virtually no coverage of that on the web. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 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 keep.
(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

William A. Winder

William A. Winder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing here seems to satisfy
Alcatraz Citadel, but that article barely mentions him and an Alcatraz Military Timeline has just two minor entries about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the first one to come up if you hit the JSTOR link above, Winder ordered the Alcatraz gunners to fire a warning shot at HMS Sutlej in 1863. Actually that might be his main claim to fame ([25]). It's not mentioned in the article at present. This person here did some digging on Winder along other lines. groupuscule (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For some people there will never be much info available, but what we have is valuable, a notable figure and position on a prominent institution, should be kept.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will add material soon, but he has a lot of coverage in newspapers. In particular, he spent a long time trying to clear his name due to his father's fame as a Confederate General, became a doctor and then an Indian Agent later in life, and after his death in Omaha, his obituary was printed in many prominent newspapers including the New York Times and the Baltimore Sun. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary guidelines never replace GNG. Adequate reliable sources, over time to meet GNG. SusunW (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. He doesn't meet
WP:SOLDIER but his later life is interesting.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep has been improved considerably since the nomination. Seems good enough to remain. Jupitus Smart 03:47, 5 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. Even those arguing for merging essentially believe the content is worth preserving. At this point of time, there seems to be no consensus for such a merge but if this changes, it can be discussed at the talk pages. So Why 10:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust in curricula

The Holocaust in curricula (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)

TheLongTone (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Twinkle rather ran away with me here. IMO this could be speedied as duplicating the topic {{Education about the holocaust]], created by the autor of this article. I'm dubious about their Genocide education as well....TheLongTone (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi TheLongTone, Thanks for your concern. Could you please specify why you think
Education about the holocaust and The Holocaust in curricula are duplicates? Curricula is a "key component" of Education about the Holocaust, and that is articulated in the article. These articles were created as part of a project that uses Wikipedia's and UNESCO's open license/open access policies to create and improve articles. If you have any doubts as to the legitimacy of these articles, Genocide education included, please consult the cited publications. If you have any questions about the project, please consult John Cummings. Thank you. (A.mart82
)
Hi, can I request nothing is 'speedied'. I don't agree they are the same subject but I don't pretend to have enough in depth knowledge of the subject to know whether it is suitable to merge this article into another or to leave as it is. --John Cummings (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
Education about the holocaust. Per Wikipedia:Article size, there's no need to have a separate article on this subtopic. The style is somewhat prolix and underreferenced and could be edited down. Although the articles don't do a very good job of establishing notability, I don't think the notability of the topic is in question as it regularly comes up in newspapers etc. But I don't think education and curricula are separate topics, even though the articles have different focuses (like having articles on restaurant food and restaurant menus.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per previous. This has the feel of a not very good academic essay, not an encyclopedic article. Inevitably each country will do this differently, so that I am not sure that a worldwide synthesis is useful to have. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This is a large expansion of
Education about the holocaust#The Holocaust in curricula and textbooks - and is not the same thing. Holocaust education is much-much broader than just school curriculum - and includes museums, documentaries, films, etc. This not short (and much expanded) article focuses on formal instruction in a school setting. "Education about the holocaust" isn't about Education in the sense of the education system - but encompasses all community outreach efforts.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 23 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, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Reasons above, this is part of a project.TeeVeeed (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this appears to be a reasonable split; the present article is quite large so a merge back to the target article would be difficult. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 4 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 and redirect to Operation Red Wings. So Why 10:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Axelson

Matthew Axelson (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:1E. -- Irn (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep fails
WP:SOLDIER, did not receive the second highest award for gallantry (Navy Cross) multiple times, but may possibly meet the GNG "significant coverage" requirement due to media. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I wasn't aware of
WP:1E addresses the "significant coverage", since all of that coverage was only due to one event, and neither his role in the event nor the event itself is significant enough to merit an entire article for him. -- Irn (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and optionally redirect name to
WP:SOLDIER. One of the other two members was awarded the nation's highest decoration for valour, Medal of Honor (SOLDIER#1), while the other survived and wrote a book, which was turned into a movie. Not the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and redirect name to the operation article.
WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 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. So Why 10:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picocon

Picocon (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 in question provides very little context or history of the convention itself (per
WP:N(E)) and no references or citations outside of external links. The homepage to said event doesn't list much information and the infomrmation I have found only directs back to another user-edited encyclopedia. article on Fanlore Snickers2686 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Incubate - The list of guests of honour includes some very notable science fiction authors (Pratchett, Baxter...) - this itself establishes
WP:NOTABILITY - however without reliable sources this article should not be included on Wikipedia. If the original author is interested, or anyone else, in continuing work on the article, including referencing, then I would support incubation until the article is of a sufficient standard to be moved into article-space. Keira 1996 04:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment
Notability is not inherited. Notability of guests does not establish that the convention is notable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you misunderstand inheritance. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand I don't think the problem here is about reliable sources (the convention webpage itself, one assumes, is reliable) but the sufficiency of sources. I would encourage more detail about the history of the convention, whether it's been referenced in places other than the Picocon web page itself, any notable incidents or appearances, etc. --khaosworks101 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 'Keep but expand' by all means once notability has been established. The convention's webpage is a
primary source, and is incapable of establishing notability. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete reluctantly (as I am part of that culture, though I haven't attended a Picocon). I would have been prepared to argue for
Ansible and File 770 being reliable sources for this purpose, but the former mentions it only in listing, and the latter not at all. Disclosure: I have been arguing this off-Wiki with some contributors to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I have now added in a number of references, including one from Boing Boing Net. They appear to establish this as long running convention, with A list authors/guests regularly appearing including Iain M Banks, Terry Pratchet, lots of others. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete an annual speaking panel does not make a convention, and that's all the sources/article discusses currently. I'd recommend the entire "Guests of Honour" section be deleted in any scenario;
talk) 04:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep primarily on the basis of recently added sources, though I would hope that they can be bettered. Artw (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a near thing, but I'm going to opine that the GNG is adequately met with the inclusion of the recently added sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Action News

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Star Wars Action News

Articles for deletion/Star Wars Action News (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Star Wars Action News (3rd nomination)

Star Wars Action News (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)

After reviewing the sources and past discussions, I concur this does not pass
WP:NMEDIA. It is a podcast that has generated little coverage of itself, except niche star wars fan sites and local media. They do get mention in passing every now and then, but I don't see what makes them significant (notable). I don't see any source discussing their significance or impact on the wider world, or even in Star Wars fandom. Yes, they are likely one of the more notable Star Wars podcasts (I am guessing, since I haven't found a source that says that...), but unless this is stated by a reliable, non-niche, non-local source, it is not enough. PS. My university doesn't seem to have access to HighBeam, but neither of those articles seem sufficient (passing mention/local coverage) to be sufficient to argue this podcast has received significant coverage by other media, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I see no case for this meeting GNG, but
talk) 05:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as promotional page for an unremarkable podcast. No sources to meet GNG / ORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 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. Having disregarded the opinion of Matthewwells55, who has been indeffed as a sock. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Silverman Gallery

Jessica Silverman Gallery (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 don't see how this comes near to meeting
WP:CORP. The gallery does what all art galleries do – have shows, try to sell works of art, promote themselves and sometimes the artists, etc. The article was created by a user named Jsginfo, and appears to have been an attempt at promotion from the day it was started. We don't allow promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although consider moving to Jessica Silverman). She and her gallery are widely covered in the art press and somewhat in Bay Area media. I added various sources. The content was not in the slightest bit promotional, so that cannot be a reason for deletion. It comes down purely to notability. With coverage in various publications, she passes
WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is not a promotional entry; the Jessica Gallery is now established in the Bay Area and the entry is sufficiently referenced User:Matthewwells55 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 07:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as blatant self-promotion of a non-notable gallery. --Lockley (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure whether the article is about Jessica Silverman or the gallery. I'd be willing to presume notability of the gallery based on its own website (the advertorials are sufficient for existence), Jessica Silverman herself is not notable.
talk) 05:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The article lacks focus, it discusses both the gallery and the owner. I don't see anything that would substantiate a claim of importance or notability. The article says nothing about the gallery besides where it is, when it was founded and what it sells. Those things apply to any retail establishment, they exist somewhere, they were established and they sell stuff. As for the founder herself, that her father created an important collection of Fluxus work is immaterial, notability is not inherited.
talk) 04:17, 5 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_30&oldid=1142617864"