Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 May	9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Ruiz

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the article - We are talking about a player who has already a professional contract with FC Barcelona, and he is also the first player born in the 20th century to play for FC Barcelona's professional teams. In this regard, it has to be noticed that FC Barcelona B is a fully professional league team, even though they are at the moment part of a mid-professional league as Segunda Division B. Considering the international scope, it is obvious this player has reached such a relevance as being the second best scorer in history in the UEFA European Under-17 Championship, ahead of other professional players as Paco Alcacer, or the one that has been capped most times in history, ahead of players as Toni Kroos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U2U3 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree with you,

WP:NFOOTBALL with an appearance on a fully-professional team (or a senior international cap), or demonstrate that there is significant media coverage of him (well, and a third - a believable quote from his manager saying he's starting next week - but that's pretty rare). Given he doesn't meet the first, your only hope is the second. What he achieved is nothing - however it could have garnered enough media coverage. What you must do is simply present that coverage. In whatever language it is in. But not just a paragraph about a signing, or a great goal. But in-depth feature articles about the player. And not on the club's website - but from real media outlets. Nfitz (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. MYS 77 ^✉ 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Patterson

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

Very sad but not notable: see

WP:VICTIM. Only known for one event, her disappearance. PamD 21:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete -
WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tragic but not encyclopedic.Glendoremus (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tragic, sad, heartbreaking. But, with that said, I regretfully !vote delete due to
WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that it (in its current form) is not encyclopedic. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note gNews hits [1] and at least 3 books discuss the case, also some scholarly articles, there may be an article here, the is raised in academic journals and books in terms of news coverage disparity when a small, photogenic girl disappears in America depending on whether she is black or white.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we have about the person is that she disappeared and that her disappearance is observed years later. The coverage of the event is local. The book hits are passing mentions among other examples of the lack of media interest in cases like this. It may not be fair, but RS support for a biography or a criminal event article appears to be insufficient. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS Chetsford (talk) 19:12, 15 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 Chinese literature. Opinions are divided between merge and delete. This redirect is a compromise in that it allows editors to figure out in the course of individual edits and discussions which, if any, content is worth merging. Sandstein 11:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Chinese literature

)

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

This is poorly written and a hodgepodge of extant information from other articles. It reads more like a middle school report than an encyclopedia article. A "B" one at that. It's not even internally-consistent as it refers to Classic period as well as the 14th century, neither of which are at all "ancient" - a phrase which probably is cribbed from the derogatory Orientalist phrase "Ancient Chinese Secret/Proverb". JesseRafe (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect into
talk) 19:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC))[reply
]

Merge into
Four Great Classical Novels, which take up half of the article as currently written, are usually considered late imperial, not ancient. -Zanhe (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as per
Power~enwiki and Zanhe. Obviously notable aspect of a greater field. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge There's nothing here that isn't covered better and more sensibly at Chinese literature and articles that branch off from there. This is especially true given the meaninglessness of this article's use of the word "ancient". Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing worth saving here. This reads like a student essay from a stealth WEF class. I question why KGirlTrucker81 thought it appropriate to accept this draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
talk) 19:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - As the nominator, it's an embarrassment for Wikipedia that this article is still up. For those advocating merge please suggest an article that this content would go on where this information isn't already, albeit only written much more cogently and well-sourced. It's entirely superfluous and to be frank, quite a stain given its seeming prominence and grandiose scope. Just delete the whole thing and leave a redirect as suggested above. JesseRafe (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NUKEANDPAVE. The topic is almost certainly notable, but this article is so beyond fixing that it would be easier to create it anew. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 15 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 Yoga. Almost nobody wants to keep this, but some want to merge a mention of this practice to Yoga or to yet-to-be-created articles. I don't think we have consensus for this, though, given that there seem to be no clear ideas about where in the expansive Yoga article his topic could be mentioned. A redirect is a compromise that allows editors to figure this out later, and to merge this material if we ever do get an article about odd Yoga variants. Sandstein 12:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goat Yoga

)

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

Much as it pains me I've declined a

Iridescent 18:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as per nom
talk) 19:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:N - and as such falls outside the scope of an encyclopaedia. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, or at most, merge into
Goat Yoga than yoga in the presence of goats, and there would be plenty of room in the Yoga article to make use of those three brief sentences in the lead of this article. --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Selective merge to
Doga (Dog Yoga) too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Something of a tangent here, but (assuming I'm reading
Iridescent 20:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it's both. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Or merge a sentence or two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Simply not notable. If anything is salvageable, merge into Yoga. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a textbook social media fad, perhaps could be mentioned at Yoga but even that is iffy w/o any enduring RS note of the practice. Bri (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect A trip to news.google.com for "goat yoga" (in quotation marks) gives me 30,500
WP:ARTN (the rule that says that an article's current contents are not the be-all and end-all of notability for the subject). But either way, I'd like to exercise the WP:N escape clause that says, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" and say that even though there are thousands of reliable sources, and even though there are apparently hundreds of businesses or events doing this, let's merge it with related topics into a larger article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments. (1) Re. Google hits count, I never quote the number at the top as it is calculated using OR and not AND. On "goat yoga", Google News (US edition) returns precisely 675 hits (68 pages of 10 results per page), out of which only the first ~190 relate to goat yoga. (2) All or almost all of them are from September 2016 until now, i.e. from the last 8 months. I submit that, be it for a new spiritual direction or for a new practice of physical exercise, it take more than 8 months from the moment they are invented to the time they are eligible for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (3) I can't see how "yoga with a dog", "yoga with a cat" should be incorporated into yoga any more than "yoga at home", "yoga in a park", "yoga in a pub", "yoga on a plane", etc. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems one company was doing "yoga with tigers", but wasn't getting much return business. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a separate article on
  dog yoga. That's why one of the attractive possibilities is to merge all of the Yoga with animals subjects together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep The topic is obviously notable, being covered by the BBC; CNN; USA Today; Modern Farmer; The Independent; Metro; CBC; NY Post; The Times and many more. It's obviously a fad but that's what makes it notable; just like
water bottle flipping and many more. See also moral panic. Andrew D. (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as
WP:SPA accounts and IP crawling over. Widefox; talk 18:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. Someone makes up a bit of nonsense of this kind every few minutes. Beer yoga is a much better idea, and much more notable too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Beer yoga? Love that! — kashmiri ^TALK 11:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

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

|username}}.

Feedbackly

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

Suggest deletion as promotional as it reads as little more than a business directory listing, without indicating how the

notability guidelines are met; I believe it merits speedy deletion but the tag is removed by others without explanation. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Good riddance, delete the garbage and the sockfarm that came along with it. All coverage appears to be press releases or minor mentions, nothing of substance that would warrant an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note the company admits in an ad posted on Upwork that they created the article and are currently trying to hire someone to save it from deletion. SmartSE (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with 331dot, this needs to go, and the Upwork ad is unfortunate. Wikipedia is not a marketing venue, and if anyone from Feedbackly is reading this, please understand that you should wait until your company legitimately meets our inclusion criteria. Thank you.
talk) 19:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Obvious attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic SAAS CRM company advertising their good on WP. scope_creep (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Student Network Czech Republic

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

Non-notable section of Erasmus Student Network. Google search reveals no independent in-depth coverage. Sourced relevant details beyond the common functions of a country-specific subsection could be mentioned in the main article. GermanJoe (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with
WP:GNG. If not deleted it could be redirected to Erasmus Student Network.--Rogerx2 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply not notable enough for its own article. If not delete, then merge (if anything salvageable)/redirect to Erasmus Student Network. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Raj Anand

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

Co-founder of a non-notable social news platform, there is no

talk|c|em) 15:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk|c|em) 15:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk|c|em) 15:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as sources in article don't cut it for notability. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are all rehashed press releases. Iamwire will take anything, Business Standard explicitly says "This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed". Not sure about ANI, but it looks like they write to-order.
talk) 18:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete sources don't cut it for notability. Only interesting/promising source was yahoo.com (and that was only due to the site name). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Hendrix

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

nn per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians orphaned for 2 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she was defeated in a local election this April, and has never held elected office. [2]
talk) 00:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Power~enwiki, she never held high enough elected office to pass
WP:NPOL --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. While it's not entirely true that she's never held elected office at all (she has apparently been a school board trustee), it is true that she hasn't held any office that would get her an
WP:ROUTINE coverage no different in volume or scope from what any city councillor or school board trustee or non-winning election candidate in any city could always expect to receive. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Very clear fail of
WP:NPOL. Currently very poorly sourced and I can't find much better. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete doesn't pass NPOL Chetsford (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails
WP:NPOL. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - doesn't meet
WP:NPOL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:59, 15 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. (

talk stalk 05:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Insane Championship Wrestling

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion. Appears to be sourced by primary sources and social media. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article quality is low, but I see no reason to delete the article.
talk) 19:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - meets
WP:GNG. Significant coverage as demonstrated by: Vice Magazine [3]. The Fight Network [4]. BBC [5] and [6]. The Independent [7]. Huffington Post [8]. Plus some other local coverage already in article. Sources from 2012 to present, including from Canada and UK. Nikki♥311 20:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Having received enough coverage over the past few years, this meets
WP:SIGCOV requirements.LM2000 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep echoing other comments, this one is notable. Article may not be good but that is not a deletion criteria. MPJ-DK 10:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate to be unoriginal, but it's all already been said. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes gng Chetsford (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG. --Guy Macon (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varuna Gugnani Bhandari

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

Non-notable lawyer, no independent coverage and looks like a promotional piece too.

talk|c|em) 14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk|c|em) 14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk|c|em) 14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk|c|em) 14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete do not assert notability Legal Seagull (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks
WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's My Life (shelved Bollywood film)

)

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

We do not keep films which are shelved or not in making anymore. Nominated for deletion. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreleased film without significant coverage of production in RSs and whose failure to release also has not generated significant coverage in RSs. Fails
WP:NFF. Gab4gab (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources online can't pass
WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: The brief Mid-Day notice attributed to "The Hitlist Team" is not sufficient to override the
WP:NFF position for this unreleased film project. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Simply not notable enough to pass
WP:NFF. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:NFF Chetsford (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Shafaie

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

Non-notable fencer Peter Rehse (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete written like an advert as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a cut-and-paste from his fencing academy, with some minor tweaks. Nothing here that constitutes a claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply non-notable, no real claim to notability (at this time, of course things may always change). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this article for a lack of both notability and significant independent coverage. I don't see anything that changes my mind about either issue. Papaursa (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per
WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:14, 16 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. Setting aside the

WP:NLIST, i.e. that this list does not meet the criteria for stand-alone lists. So Why 13:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

List of Blue's Clues home video releases

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

This article is a vandal magnet. It is an implausibly large and unverified list of alleged home video releases for the TV show

Blues Clues

which seems to exist solely so that hoaxers can fiddle the dates and add, remove or change items without references to provide any external corroboration. Now, obviously I accept that there have been home video releases for this TV show and I have no objection to any of the items here that can be proven real being listed somewhere (with references). Even so, I don't think that this deserves its own article. Even if the list of genuine video releases is as long as claimed here (which I doubt) it can be accommodated in the main article. It is not like any of these video releases is notable in its own right. To this end, I tried redirecting this title back to the main article but it has not stuck. I have tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page but it seems that there is nothing doing.

I think it is time to admit that there is no hope for this ever to be anything other than a vandals' playground and give up on it. As I see it, the alternative is copying everything on this subject out of IMDB, painstakingly checking that it is all genuine there and then spending the rest ofour short lives defending it from those who (for reasons that make no sense to me) want to mess it up. That seems like a lot of unnecessary work when we could just link to IMDB's own lists (or another good source) and have done with it. DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was vandalized by the IPs. We are trying to revert their unsourced edits but the IPs won't stop. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:80D0:40F:540A:5DCD (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's suitable for a stand alone list or within the main article. If vandalism is really that much of an issue, you should request page protection. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would we be protecting? Why fossilise an article that could be anywhere between 10% and 90% fake in its protected state? If there was ever a good, verifiable version of this article worthy of protection which we could revert to then I would agree with you 100% but there isn't. That is why I suggest we just give up on this. Articles like this are a discredit to Wikipedia. We know that they are bad but clearly we don't have the time or the will to research such minor subjects in the detail required to make them good so they stay, forever unverified, as the sole preserve of the hoaxers and vandals. This reinforces the impression that we are soft on hoaxes, inaccuracies and low level disruption and so the hoaxers will be encouraged and will persist. It is not like I have not tried to encourage good editors to work on this. I have added it to projects and put suggestions on the talk page. It hasn't done any good. It is nothing but a rod for our own backs. Its existence has a small knock on effect on the whole project. Small, but detrimental. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of interest in !voting here is understandable. I think this illustrates why articles such as this are problematic. It is a sub-article of a subject that is itself pretty obscure. It will attract fan writing, and also vandalism by those who think it is funny to get one over on the fans and on Wikipedia, but very little attention from experienced editors who can ensure that the content is correct and validly referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see how this article could pass
WP:LISTN. It is not necessary nor important to have a list of every single release on VHS/DVD of a particular show, particular when it is difficult to verify them (other than links to Amazon - online shopping sites) Ajf773 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: There should be a list of Blue's CLues VHS/DVD. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Multiple !voting by 2607:fea8:a29f:fdee::/64 —DoRD (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should there be a list? Wikipedia is
  WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Ajf773 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. These are relevant and needs to be kept. ~~2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:3C69:A23E:115C:B328 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)~~ Multiple !voting by 2607:fea8:a29f:fdee::/64 —DoRD (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes them relevant and needed to be kept? Please explain in more detail. Ajf773 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Isn't there a Blue's Clues Wikia site? KMF (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't give a crap about that wiki. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Explain why we really need the page instead of using vulgar language. At a good fath editor. 2600:1:F18E:779D:603E:D9C:3AA0:8A77 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is unverifiable and needless. I don't see the point of having it nor any video list article. Wikipedia after all is not a list of videos site. 2600:1:F18E:779D:3138:A14F:E071:111B (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the list of Dora videos. There are many list of videos. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't great but at least it has better referencing that this does. I'm going to tag the equivalent Dora article as needing improvement but it doesn't seem like it needs deleting like this does. Besides, we have a policy

WP:OTHERCRAP which means that even if that was literally the worst thing on Wikipedia (which it isn't) it still wouldn't help to justify this article, which is what we are talking about here. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. The page is so obviously useless that, if it does serve as a honeypot for vandals, that may be a reason to keep the article. (otherwise, it's an obvious delete)
talk) 19:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: People don't even know what is deleting a page. Similar to the list of Dora videos and others, it is useful to have a list.2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Multiple !voting by 2607:fea8:a29f:fdee::/64 —DoRD (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not care about what is "useful". What it wants is "verifiable" info. And in any case, there is nothing useful about an article whose only purpose is to list videos. And I don't get the point of the list of Dora videos. Seems more to do with fandom than an encyclopeida. 2600:1:F18E:779D:603E:D9C:3AA0:8A77 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 has tried to place two votes, I have omitted the second of those two. There also seems to be a high amount of activity from unregs in this discussion. I propose we disregard their comments as it may construct an unbiased AfD debate. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least this page should be protected instead of being deleted. Conor Dooley (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Daniel's words above [[9]]. 2600:1:F18E:779D:2961:E106:9A9D:7391 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Dooley has been suspensed indefinitely for sock-puppetry. I think it's wise to disregard their vote for the purposes of obtaining an unbiased consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:LISTN. While I suspect the information in the list is likely verifiable to catalogues along the lines of the Amazon listings already cited there don't seem to be any available sources which discuss Blue's Clues home video releases as a group. Most of the above arguments (from both sides) are IMO rather dodgy. Hut 8.5 06:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I wholeheartedly agree with DanielRigal, this is just a black eye article. Ifnord (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and this article could serve as a great example of
WP:ISNOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Sen-Sameer Sen

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

talk) 20:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:RS. -- Dane ^talk 18:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as above LA2029 (talk) 21:05, 12 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. No one wants this to be deleted completely, but opinion is split between merge/redirecting and keeping.

(non-admin closure) f e minist 12:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Nu Generation

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

Article about a band, which asserts a notability claim but fails to

reliably source it. NMUSIC criteria are not passed just because they're claimed to have been passed; they're passed only when the claim to passage is reliably sourced to media coverage about them. But I've just done a Google search, and came up completely dry for any evidence of media coverage whatsoever -- and even if the chart position can be nominally verified in some source I'm missing, the band still can't have an article if they're so unsourceable otherwise that, for example, we can't even provide the names of the band members. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something more substantial than a single sentence stating that they existed, but what's here simply isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
In Your Arms (Rescue Me). I've managed to find sourcing, but only for the song and not the band. The article's creator already created an article for the song, but made it a redirect to the band. Essentially, I'm proposing that it be the other way around. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Two charting singles in the UK - "In Your Arms" (no. 8) and "Nowhere to Run" (no. 66),[10] and other sources confirm Nu Generation is actually Aston Harvey of Freestylers ([11], [12]), so a merge there is also a possibility. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Poorly written and sourced, it definitely needs improved, but worthiness of having a Wikipedia entry is proved by Michig (talk). I agree a redirect is a solution at the ver least. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Keep Clearly meets "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." on
talk) 19:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srishti Robotics

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

Does not appear to be a notable company; only two references in the article, one to the company's website, and the other is just a passing mention. A search for coverage in reliable sources only resulted in company profiles or false positives.

csdnew 12:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete – does not meet the notability criteria at
WP:NCORP. Citobun (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No RS, just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Fails
WP:NCORP. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:16, 16 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 List of thwarted Islamist terrorist attacks#2017. Sandstein 11:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Whitehall Incident

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

Delete per

WP:NOTNEWS. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom and my original prod. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks notable content. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to
New Zealand Herald with the AP report [13] describing this as part of Britain's ongoing anti-terrorism security monitoring operations, the individual carrying the knives was on a watch list, and officials believe him to be connected with ISIS supporting groups. They took him off a bus as he approached Whitehall because someone in the security establishment had reason to suspect that this might be an attack, and the London police are on high alet after the 2017 Westminster attack.[14] The family tipped off the police [15]. I think we can use these 3 sources to merge it to a list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of thwarted Islamist terrorist attacks, the event did occur and will fit neatly in that already very long list as one more incident. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:02, 9 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Dal Santo

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

Completing nomination for an IP editor, whose rationale (from the article's talk page) is copied verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation. Note, however, that even if the one reference provided is reliable, it's not enough on its own to show notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is only a list of statistics. There is nothing that indicates that this cyclist is special or important in any shape or form. The only source is a dubious website that gives no info about its owners and that has no indication of any serious review(it isn't reliable).2003:69:AD03:BF00:E41C:AB6C:2292:74D1 (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you know about the AfD process, since you're a new editor? Have you edited before, and if so, under what account(s)? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
A quick search found several articles about the subject, which I've added to the article, alongside her already meeting the notability for being a professional cyclist. At worst, redirect to her cycling team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. IP should have practiced
WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 18:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks for making some initial improvements
WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Fails
WP:NCYC for women is broken and super-inclusive, so from the sport perspective she fails. There seem to be some coverage of her as a model both those sites don't look very reliable; I'd like to hear from an Italian speaker on their reliability. The problem with this low-level celebrity coverage is that sometimes such sites are gossip-tabloid-blog level of sources, and our standards are a bit higher. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improvements made by Lugnuts.
Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
WP:NCYC after the improvements made by Lugnuts. Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 8 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) f e minist 12:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Egypt Basketball Cup

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

Lacks any sort of context besides Wikitables and an infobox. Previously deleted but recreated by the same author. — Chevvin 20:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems surprisingly redundant with
Egyptian Basketball Super League. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect and delete if the creator persists. Legacypac (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Or we could request protection of the redirect at
  talk) 18:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; despite redundat with the Super League article, it seems it is a different competition. I'm not sure of the notability of an African national Cup for deleting it. It needs to be completely improved. Asturkian (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has nothing to do with the basketball league. These are two different competitions. National cup competitions of the highest professional level in a country should not be deleted.Bluesangrel (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Apparently very notable, contrary to what I believed it is not redundant but another event. — Paleo Neonate — 00:16, 12 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. As noted, that other buildings have articles does not matter here one way or another - for all we know these articles need to be deleted as well. Consensus on the kettling episode seems to be that it has nothing to do with the building specifically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 The Esplanade

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG --David Tornheim (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. There's no
primary sources or indiscriminate "all buildings in" directories. And this isn't a personal lack of familiarity with the topic either, for the record — not only do I live in Toronto, I've been physically in this building before because I have a friend who used to live in it. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Simply does not have the reliable coverage needed to pass
WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. There are quite a few articles about tall buildings in Toronto, some articles are about buildings smaller than this one. Why delete this article specifically? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

reliable source coverage in media or not. Any other building which doesn't have reliable source coverage in media should also be deleted, while any other building which does have reliable source coverage in media is not directly equivalent to this one just because of a height comparison alone — it is entirely possible for a shorter building to be more notable than a taller one, if the shorter building has the depth of reliable source coverage required and the taller one doesn't, because our inclusion criteria for buildings are based on the sourceability and not the height per se. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Not to worry: I will soon be nominating the rest of them that are not notable when this was done. This was the first building on that long list of yellow page advertisements that need to go, and I used this and another one as test cases. You might want to take a look at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Are_we_now_a_Yellow_Pages_for_U.K._Realty.3F (permalink to its present form). --David Tornheim (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of
WP:GEOFEAT. As David mentions, some of the other buildings don't seem likely to be notable, either, although I'm not likely to research notability of Toronto condos! I was interested in the process that brought the David to AFD this building. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Too bad, but yes. I just don't see the coverage. BTW it's linked from
talk) 17:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -- We don't delete poorly written articles when the topic itself is notable.
What is missing from the article, what nominator seems unaware of, and what those weighing in with "delete" opinions seem unaware of, is that the infamous "Kettling" of about four hundred G20 protesters and innocent bystanders occurred in front of this building, fwiw. Geo Swan (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do delete poorly written articles per the essays

WP:JUNK

.

Well, if the

WP:SECONDARY sources that speak about it. That doesn't make the building notable, but the incident. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC) (revised 01:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC) per below)[reply

]

WRT

WP:TNT

... Isn't it an essay? Note: from your wording a reader could believe you are stating it is a policy or guideline -- a wikidocument to be relied on. Further, isn't it talking about deletion as a last resort? Isn't deletion of articles on topics that are notable, reserved for articles where people have made sincere attempts to reach a compromise, and, in spite of genuine good faith efforts, have failed to do so?

WRT

WP:JUNK

... also an essay, not a policy or guideline. Could you please be careful not to imply essays are policies or guidelines?

While you did leave a comment on the talk pages of the article, and some related articles, weren't your talk page comments made shortly before you nominated them for deletion? Do you understand thi gives the appearance your talk page comments were not designed to be the beginning of a talk page discussion over your concerns? Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to give any impression of when I wrote on the talk page relative to the

WP:PRIMARY

and anyone who is changing the article including him should be aware that it is a problem.

I did not go to the talk page before submitting this

WP:AfD, because I thought it would be trivial to get agreement that this building is not notable and that there was no need to discuss at the talk page first but quickly get this resolved. Now that someone is editing the article, it is necessary to make comments about those edits on the talk page of the article not just here, since this is obviously not going to be resolved any time soon. Unfortunately this is dragging on forever, and we have very few new eyes on this. At some point, we are going to need to get new eyes on this... --David Tornheim (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The fact that a notable incident occurred outside of a building doesn't confer notability on the building per se — the building is just a bystander in the notability of the incident, not a central player. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 14 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) f e minist 12:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sumgait Technologies Park

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

CSD was declined, but this is not notable technology park with no independent coverage at all. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is large enough to be counted as a geographic area. Also I cam across http://en.azvision.az/U.S.-Ambassador-visits-Sumgait--11903-xeber.html There also appears to be many hits for "Sumqayıt Texnologiyalar Parkı" but I can't assess how good they are. At least some appear to be news. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a significant place in Azerbaijan. News coverage in English: [16], [17], an interview: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. MB 04:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alongside the refs suppied above, there are a few more on Google News (including: [24] and [25]), and two on HighBeam ([26] and [27]). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:55, 15 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esbjerg Printing Museum

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

fails WP:ORG. 3 out of 5 listed sources are its own website. I could not find significant coverage for its Danish name. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Small museum, but it does get some coverage. I added a Danish news story as a source. It is in the English language guidebooks [28], and gets mentioned in travel articles, ("Nordic delights,"
Daily Telegraph, [29]) Note: that the city has named the street the Museum is on after the Museum, address is "19 Bogtrykmuseet." There is no reason to delete a small museum about printing, that has existed for decades and is sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

a one line mention in a newspaper article is hardly indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

neither are 1 or 2 line mentions in travel guide books. LibStar (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"En kendsgerning er det, at bogtrykmuseet i Viborg på utrolig kort tid har samlet utrolig mange genstande fra dengang, der var typografer til. Ikke bare fylder sagerne de 300 kvadratmeter i selve museet på Gl. Århusvej 21 b, men også 400 kvadratmeter på lagre." adding this Stifts Folkeblad story to article now. long-established museums can almost always be soruced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gBook search in Danish [30].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 17:42, 8 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. The sock !vote has been discarded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rajeswaran

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

Some notability exists, but on the edge. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,
WP:RS on him or his startup, just passing mentions. Uncle Roy (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Clarifying my vote to "delete" in view of the special-pleading sockpuppet nonsense. He's probably not notable anyway, and if there's going to be nonsense, it's certainly not worth it. The rest of earlier analysis, below, stands. Herostratus (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He looks to be an inspiring story, but... well let's see. Article says "He received the FSB and Worldpay young entrepreneur of the year award", but the source says GoCode Academy won it. Which GoCode Academy is his baby, plus how can an academy win "entrepreneur of the year", but that's what it says. Anyway its a local source without in-depth coverage of him, just PR-style speechifying.

Second source is an in-depth article, although it's in a fairly obscure venue, Tamil Culture website. But it is written by Rajeswaran. So it's not useful for establishing notabily, and is a sketchy source.

The third source is The Guardian. Notable! But it's not in-depth. It says "Robert Rajeswaran, chief executive of coding bootcamp GoCode, was forced to leave Jaffna, Sri Lanka with his family when he was a child. It took around two years of his family living as refugees before they were granted asylum in the UK. He says the whole experience of being a refugee gave him the hunger to make his business work. “There was standoffish behaviour towards refugees and immigrants in parts of society [...] This gave me a drive to succeed and prove that a refugee too can make it in this country through sheer hard work and perseverance.”". It's not in-depth but it's more than just a passing mention. It's something to build on.

But that's it for the article's sources. So to Google. Short mention at something called Entrepreneurial Spark. One-sentence quote in the local paper. Doesn't seem to be much else.

"Rajeswaran is a guest speaker at schools, colleges and universities across the UK" seems to have no source. The Guardian bit laid out above is describes with "He was featured on The Guardian..." which is maybe a bit of an overstatement, "featured". So there's some self-promotion going on here. And, it's a

WP:BLP

so... we want to be cautious. A fair amount of the material is not sourced. It's all positive or neutral, so its not an immediate pressing problem though.

So... does the Guardian few sentences, plus all the other stuff added together, add to meeting

WP:GNG? Mnmnh... maybe not. He's on the bubble but sliding off IMO maybe. Herostratus (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of research.

Here are all the articles MK Citizen Article 1 http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/coding-contest-tested-top-tech-student-during-visit-to-oxford-1-7898825 MK Citizen Article 2 https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/2525409/MK%20Citizen%2026th%20January%202017%20(3).pdf http://www.entrepreneurial-spark.com/entrepreneurial-spark-launches-in-milton-keynes/ http://www.entrepreneurial-spark.com/10000-to-be-awarded-to-milton-keynes-entrepreneurs/ http://bridgingandcommercial.co.uk/article-desc-5544_platform-bla http://www.banklesstimes.com/2016/01/21/uk-alt-fi-platform-black-announces-three-hires/ http://blog.bpp.com/careers/workplace-mentoring-scheme-london-city-campus/ http://tamildiplomat.com/london-tamil-market-2017-ends-high-note/ Blog he wrote with images of him in schools

Robert Rajeswaran's https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-rajeswaran-bb909b49/?ppe=1

MKFM Radio interview http://www.mkfm.com/on-air/podcasts/the-mid-morning-show/?view=2017-04

Secklow Sounds Radio interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y_LAi5H858

He raised funds for youth charity YMCA Help our Homeless Young People | Localgiving — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnparsonshmk (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC) — Johnparsonshmk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This started off as a blatantly self promotional autobio, as noted above this is skirting
WP:GNG, and the editor adding sources above is a brand new account that only came in to existence after Robertrajeswaran was cautioned about editing his own articles. I hear a quacking sound. JamesG5 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note SPA has confirmed my suspicions, both accounts have been blocked. So in addition to notability issues there's the question of is another editor willing to take this in hand and do the fixes needed assuming it's kept. JamesG5 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael MacDonald (ice hockey)

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

fails

WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

20-Mule-Team Delete: A case of
WP:NHOCKEY going away, and shows no signs of meeting the GNG. My presumption is that Dolovis thought no one would notice. Ravenswing 07:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet
WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NHOCKEY by quite a bit. I'll assume good faith by Dolovis, and suggest (s)he looks at notability guidelines. I also think that this article could have been a quick delete, but I am also compelled to edit kindly. Bill McKenna (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Oh, Dolovis demonstrated bad faith over many years, many hundreds of XfDs, and which eventually led to community bans from both new article creation and creating redirects. Ravenswing 04:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Miller (ice hockey, born 1979)

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

fails

WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN and nondescript journeyman third-liner in the mid- to low-minors, could never pass any iteration of
WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT scams, but even so. Ravenswing 17:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No significant coverage to meet
WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:54, 11 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. Not enough comments on salting so deferring to

WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Domenic Ando

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

Article was nominated under Fails

WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league. Player competes in the Football West State League Division 2 in Australia which is not fully professional. Prod was removed without reason. Kosack (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fail GNG let alone NFOOTY. Note that these microstubs provide no further information than already covered by Swan United FC#Current Squad. Aoziwe (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all - None of them have received significant coverage or have played in a fully professional league, meaning they fails
WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - these articles fail
WP:GNG, with no significant coverage or citations to meet the notability requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Players have played in the FFA Cup Which is deemed as a professional soccer competition by the Football Federation Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.147.192 (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appearances in cup competitions must be between two fully professional sides to meet

WP:NFOOTBALL. Swan United FC is not a fully professional club. Kosack (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: FIFA deems all matches played in a professional cup competition governed by a member federation (in this instance, Football Federation Australia and the FFA cup) as professional and competitive. Any sanctions given to clubs or players involved in the FFA cup can be escalated to FIFA for appeal. The State League and the FFA Cup is regulated to comply with national and international betting laws, with Bookmakers offering odds on matches.

We're not concerned with what FIFA or FFA deem to be professional, we are concerned with competitions (and by definition the teams competing within them) that are confirmed as fully professional per

WP:FPL. This means that players who have not made senior international appearances have to have played for a club in one of these competitions or played in a national cup competition in a game between clubs from fully professional leagues. As these players have only played for clubs outside of Australia's fully professional structure, they cannot be considered notable per NFOOTY and there is nothing to indicate sufficient significant coverage can be found on any player to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment:We're not concerned either. These players as defined under FIFA regulations have played in a "professional" and "competitive" game of "association football". You keep pointing the WP guidelines, however they then reference FIFA guidelines. Moving forward, our organisation will keep deleting any nominations for deletion, this is the revolution. We will not bow to your hypocrisy and draconian methodology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.147.192 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll do nothing of the sort, all these articles have now been protected against editing by non-confirmed users until this discussion is completed. Fenix down (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles will be re-created and you Fenix the dictator will be receiving a permanent ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.147.192 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and salt all per vandalism threats posted above. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: On 22:58, 9 May 2017 Bbb23 blocked 139.130.147.192 with an expiration time of 1 week (CheckUser block). --Guy Macon (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:18, 16 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 Joe B. Mauldin. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Teens

)

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

Does not satisfy

musical notability. Google search does not turn up anything, just lots of hits on four teens. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is teetering on the edge of
WP:NOTINHERITED, but there was significant crossover in musicians and material between this and Buddy Holly's band. I have added a couple of references to the article, and there is also this interview with Larry Welborn, e.g. around the 6:20 point. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Does not meet notablity. Per nom. Reb1981 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best to Joe B. Mauldin, the only subject connected with this band worth wikipedia notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe B. Mauldin as per the above suggestion. I can't find anything to confirm the Grammy claim, just that the group had "regional success" with a pair of singles (the same source AllyD added to the article). There are many mentions around Google, but virtually all of them (e.g., here) serve only to briefly describe Mauldin's activities prior to joining the Crickets. Redirecting this to Mauldin's individual article, where the group is already mentioned, seems reasonable. Gongshow talk 03:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dial H for Heroclix

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

I found no significant coverage. This podcast fails

WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also can't find any significant coverage anywhere, outside of posts or other promotional stuff from the subject. Doesn't seem to meet
WP:NWEB. I don't think there's anywhere reasonable to merge this either. Ajpolino (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I also looked and am unable to find RS coverage of the podcast. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:06, 8 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) f e minist 05:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Century Record Manufacturing Company

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

Small company in business for just 18 years. No claim to notability indicated. Fails

WP:NCORP. Insufficient coverage in RS. MB 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material; no indications of significance nor why Wikipedia should have a page on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was, in my estimation, the largest custom record label of its time, and perhaps of any time. As a collector, I very frequently run across the products, seems like 80% of all high schools used this company at one time or another between 1960 and 1975 for their band and choir. Not sure if I can make this meet GNG or not, but I'd like to be careful before deleting this one. PS, 18 years isn't shabby bad by record label standards.78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Mindful that the article itself is weak, the label, in a general sense, seems notable, if for no other reason, for the fact that it was used by institutions of higher learning. Among other things, its discography chronicles a boat-load of 20th and 21st century works – many by U.S. composers – mostly performed by a wide array of universities. To that end, the label is a source for educators and researchers – including musicologists. For that crowd, the topic helps bibliographers. The label also chronicles the levels of music education at American institutions. In particular, the entire inventory of recordings represents a "sound history" of the level of performances reached by American intuitions. Incidentally, if you do a search on WorldCat under keywords, "Century" and "Saugus" (screening for "sound recordings"), you might get about 966 hits. In other words, its notability, or the possibility of any perceived notability, might better be ascertained by composers and music oriented academicians. The subject is obviously esoteric. Yet, I am suggesting that criteria for notability is, in this case, nuanced. I posted the article while researching a composer whose works were found on the label. Amplifying a point (see above) made by User:78.26, the lifespan of record labels – particularly those of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s – are akin to dog years. Eighteen years is an eternity for an independent label, particularly one that served a niche, non-profit sector – albeit a large sector that extended from coast to coast. For me, looking at a label can be frustrating when nothing is known, namely, among other things, whether it is dead or alive or custom or commercial. – Eurodog (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The source, while not all online, seem to help the subject meet at least
WP:GNG. Thanks to Eurodog for finding them and improving the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - a different sort of record label. There aren't any signed artists, you gave Century a wad of cash, you got a record made. However, the affect on the record industry by Century was significant. It is therefore an encyclopedic topic. Thanks to Eurodog for finding some sources so we can
verify the statements in the article. I believe this now meets GNG guidelines. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH

and GNG as only one of the references passes the required criteria. I've examined the references in the context of the requirements set out for acceptable sources that establishes notability and except for one Billboard article the sources provided fall short:

This obituary of Bud Keysor fails

WP:PRIMARY

sources and the obituary is about the person Bud Keysor and not the topic of this article (which is mentioned in passing). Finally, the source itself appears to be a regional source and describes itself as a "nonprofit community service organization that operates the Sata Clarita Valley's public television channel)".

This obituary of Jim Keysor (son of Bud) only mentions the company in passing and is insufficient to assist establishing notability.

This Billboard article and especially the opening paragraphs appear sufficiently intellectually independent when discussing the industry as a whole and therefore meets the criteria. Although most of the Century Record information comes from a company officer and would therefore fail

WP:PRIMARY

source, I believe the opening paragraphs are good.

This next Billboard article fails the criteria in

WP:CORPDEPTH

as it appear to be a simple PR announcement of the opening of a new facility.

The Signal article headlined "Company's woes still plague SCV" is from a regional newspaper called "The Signal" who self-describe as "a community newspaper serving the Santa Clarita Valley" which "covers local news, sports and community activities". In my opinion, this source fails as a reliable source "with a reputation for fact checking". Also, some of the information comes from the unverified and unsubstantiated memories of "Betty", a "former employee" who wished to remain anonymous but is obviously worried about her health.

There are two sources that I am unable to find as they do not appear online and perhaps those sources may meet the guidelines - if anyone could be kind enough to post a snippet, it may swing my !vote. Those sources are the "Music Journal Annual Anthology, pg. 171 (1959)" and the article from "Valley News".

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. as well documented as can be expected for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Do "esoteric" subjects need less coverage to meet GNG? The description of what this company did seems rather mundane and not surprisingly unnotable. If someone can propose some article on the record industry where this company can be mentioned, then there could be a minor merge and redirect. MB 05:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to meet GNG with those external references. I'd be fine with some cleanup, however. South Nashua (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Füglister

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

non-notable ice hockey player. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Füglister is the captain of the

talk) 02:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I think the question lies in the interpretation of

WP:GNG. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NHOCKEY doesn't need any "interpretation" here -- there is just no part of it under which the subject comes remotely close to passing. As a pro, his career in the Swiss mid-minors is far too low for notice. Far from having played in the A pool at the World Championships, the Phillipine national team is a new startup that joined the IIHF less than a year ago and has never played at any level in the Worlds, never mind the Olympics. As far as the GNG goes, we need far less to consider whether the Philippine Star or the IIHF constitute reliable sources (the former does, at least) than to recognize that those cites don't meet the GNG at all: the Star source does nothing more than mention his name in a list of other names, the second only quotes him, longstanding practice being that a source consisting solely of quotes from a subject does not support the notability of the subject. Neither provides the "significant coverage" in detail that the GNG requires. Ravenswing 22:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably
csdnew 09:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A retired third division swiss league player who has had no significant coverage.
18abruce (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Doesn't come close to meeting either
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - non-notable sportsperson.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Palnitkar

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

This biography is not notable and the main source, aside from a couple of web news articles during the dot-com era is a LinkedIn profile. Wikipedia does not synthesize information per policy and is not a place to advertise. NCMECK345 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I support delete based on nomination. JCP2017 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)~~ (Obvious sock blocked and !vote struck. Please note I have also blocked the proposer for socking for 1 week, and as I have taken admin action I cannot now comment on the deletion discussion itself. I'll leave it to any reviewer to decide whether to extend the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. I do not see the linked in profile being used as the principle source here, and as notability is not temporary I see no problem with most sources being contemporary to his period of peak prominence (if they all are, I haven't checked the date of all of them). I debated speedily closing this nomination based on the nominator being blocked, but decided on balance that it was probably worth having the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, surprisingly. I was expecting to !vote "Keep" here, but as I look at it, I really don't see any sources that are really about the subject. We have the subject's own linkedin profile, mentioned above and cited twice; some sources like this EE Times article that mention an associated company, but don't mention the subject at all; a press release which is the same, and is just a press release on top of that; some directory-like entries such as this list of investors in one of his companies; a web forum post (
WP:RS sources. Some sources, like this one, at least mention the subject, but in very little depth; almost in passing. My own independent search really doesn't find much about the subject of the article, either. TJRC (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability criteria; lacking in in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While I think sources might show up on his business career, and he is an author (I do know Verilog, but I don't recall this book in particular - but I'm not an expert on Verilog).... The sources aren't there, and a quick google and book search doesn't bring up much.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 15 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WWGB (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Jackson (actress)

)

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

Minor model with no significant achievements. Fails

WP:NOTINHERITED. Has sufficient coverage in her father's existing article. Actually the third nomination, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. WWGB (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note that the AfD was applied to this version of the article, which has since been expanded. I will leave it to others to decide on the merit of the current version. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, the current state of the article is a travesty, a citation-less blip of a paragraph. I have restored the last good version, but in case that gets reverted, discussion participants should look at this version from April 4. As for the subject patter, Paris has been discussed in-depth in several reliable sources.

Rolling Stone magazine, Paris Jackson: Life After Neverland
Harpers Bazaar, Paris in the Spring
CNN, Paris Jackson makes late-night debut
Toronto Sun, Paris Jackson to star in Madonna biopic: Report
People, Jackson Reportedly Signs Major Contract with Calvin Klein

Michael Jackson died in 2009, you can't use

WP:NOTINHERITED 8 years after the fact. The coverage of Paris Jackson is solidly independent of her parentage. TheValeyard (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Jackson article passes muster, she is notable under the simplest of WP standards. Cllgbksr (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets
WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep She's clearly notable.Fork me (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obvious to anyone with a brain looking at this objectively that not only is she notable, but more importantly, her notability is actually growing even more. Even if she ends up as the next Kim Kardashian that's still notable. --Dr who1975 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The media routinely covers her personal life as a celebrity. She easily passes
WP:GNG at every turn. All subsequent guidelines are secondary and really irrelevant when GNG has been so widely met. Mkdw ^talk 22:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - She's now clearly notable in her own right, has been the subject of a bunch of articles in a bunch of high profile outlets, and has now signed with a major modeling agency. We've kept pages for people with considerably less exposure than her, so this article is legit. -- Hux (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep: Clearly notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Hugely notable. Mjbmr (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability not in question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 15 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BulletProof Music

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

Fails

reliability. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 00:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 00:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 00:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 14:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BulletProof was an imprint of a minor label in the 1990s, Gray Dot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Wolfson5 (talk) 01:11, 14 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.