Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 October	30 October >

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riria Yoshikawa

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet

WP:NACTOR. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial website and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - fails notability criteria. Atsme 📞📧 00:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding anything to demonstrate encyclopedic value. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non non notable porn actress, Fails PORNBIO 7 GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 23:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any media coverage required per WP:PORNBIO. (Who knew that was a thing?) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:04, 4 November 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. This RSN discussion is highly relevant: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable?. This page is unsuitable for a redirect/merge unless we have actual reliable sources to confirm either Rajput or Parmar as suitable targets. Thank you to 86.17.222.157 for linking that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pahore

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

I couldn't find any academic sources mentioning the topic via Google Books. Unremarkable, fails

talk) 06:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not convinced one way or the other at this point, but [1] seems to a fairly respectable mention. (This is cited in the article as "Glossary of Tribes and Castes"; see A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That book, like others on the topic published in the era of the British Raj, is by no means a reliable source, being a mixture of scientific racism and divide and rule. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable? for futher information. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I did not look closely at the book. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Rajput ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect? Do we have a reliable source that even says that this is a Rajput clan? Many of these articles, and no evidence has been given that this is any different, are simply about a family tradition rather than anything that belongs in an encyclopedia, even as a redirect. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts about this? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There don't seem to be sny significant sources giving substantial coverage. Breaking sticks (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Parmar per [[2]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already explained above that is not a reliable source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide proof. Otherwise, a merge and redirect is the best option. And you'd be better off down the road having a real user name. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I linked a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard above. And my choice to reveal my IP address when editing is irrelevant to this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not seeing how racism and ethnocentricity applies in this case. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all explained in that noticeboard discussion, which was triggered by this very book. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Super confusing, does not looks notable and no reliable sources are cited for this. Not sure what the context of such an article would be either.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Steingo

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for academics Eterna fontoj (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete fail
WP:BASIC. Has only written one book, and I can find no reviews. I did find this link to The H-Net Book Channel, but it may merely be an announcement of publication of the book New Book - Kwaito's promise : music and the aesthetics of freedom in South Africa. He has written a handful of articles, but I am not seeing impact. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Doesn't pass either
WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I was only able to find a few minor mentions but no significant coverage for him or his writings. Fails
WP:GNG TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:16, 4 November 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. There is no specific consensus for any solution.

T

02:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

AirPower

)

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

This doesn't seem to be in any way notable, it's just another charging accessory for Apple products... Appears that it works in the same way as any other wireless charging pad that is already on the market. Seems to fall into the "its an Apple product therefore needs an article" pile... Basically just fails basic notability guidelines IMO. News coverage is nothing more than basic new device coverage. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 17:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Strong merge to
WP:TOOSOON. Wumbolo (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It’s not like the usual charging mat you find at your local store. This one's quite different than the rest in my opinion, deserves an article.
talk) 17:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Do you mind providing some reliable sources? Wumbolo (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:TOOSOON for this proposed variation of the charging standard which "won't arrive until sometime in 2018." Ensure there's also a mention in the Apple Inc products section. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is notable enough for an article because it's a one of it's kind product from apple and different from the rest. – Craig Davison (T ∙ C ∙ @) 09:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davisonio: Can you please explain why it is different from the rest? Sources I can find disagree with that so if you could find some that explain why AirPower is unique or notable that would be great thanks! Saying a product is one of a kind and from Apple doesn't make it true... Generally just means Apple marketing has succeeded :) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6: "Apple isn't just adding Qi wireless charging to its latest iPhones; it's trotting out a charging standard of its own. AirPower is built in partnership with Qi, but can top up multiple devices at once."^[1] 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:4DE (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung and others already have wireless chargers that do this, see this Samsung charger. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:TOOSOON, I don't know, or care, but AirPower is something unique (good or bad, I don't know). Once released to the public, AirPower (standard and/or device) is IMHO notable enough to justify an article. 2A03:1B20:2:F702:0:0:0:4DE (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

You've just made a good case for redirecting or merging, and haven't referred to any Wikipedia policies to support retention. (You don't know/care if it's

WP:RS - now - and not some time in the future.Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@
WP:TOOSOON policy. It's instead a response to EoRdE6, and the misrepresentation that AirPower (the device) is just another Qi standard charging mat, like the one from Samsung. Since Apple clearly stated that the AirPower (the technology) isn't, yet, part of the Qi standard, the device is by default "unique" (good or bad, notable or not). What you argue against as "'opinion'", is clearly stated to be just that, a humble opinion at that, and not an argument for a "basis upon which to build an encyclopedia". Is one not allowed to give a humble opinion after clearing up the technical fact that other Qi charing mats require precise alignment of the transmitter and receiver coils (also is limited to one receiver coil per transmitter coil), and that the AirPower standard is shown by Apple in its keynote too remedy this issue. The user obviosly doesn't "'know' it'll be unique" in the future, he/she clearly state that it is unique right now (since AirPower is a new standard/technology, that is not yet part of the Qi standard; name any other Qi compatible charing mat, for three of more devices, where precise coil alignments doesn't matter). 2A03:1B20:1:F410:0:0:0:12DE (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

My apologies. I wasn't trying to turn your comment into a !vote - just observing your response to EoRdE6 seemed to steer one (well, me, I guess) into the view that retention wasn't the most logical of those alternative actions. But your information was certainly appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the "precise coil alignment" issue is a real world issue. Even after successful initial alignment of a single receiver device: "After a month I’m kind of meh about Qi charging. As Snell notes, you have to put it on the pad just so, and it can move off the sweet spot when the phone vibrates from notifications. I’m hoping Apple’s own AirPower pad works better than the Belkin dingus I got to test."^[2] DavidHaller (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Apple's AirPower tech wirelessly charges multiple devices at once".
^ John Gruber (October 28, 2017). "Daring Fireball: Jason Snell Reviews the iPhone 8: The Inessential iPhone". Daring Fireball. Retrieved October 29, 2017.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AirPort is "just another router from Apple" yet it has its own article. MacBook is "just another laptop from Apple", and yet it's still there. So I'm dismissing such arguments, on their own, as reasons for either delete or merge. Its certainly NOTEable as the wide variety of articles attest, and that's my main metric. Likewise this product has several unique features that are widely covered in those articles, so arguments that it's non-unique fail - the problems in Qi are widely discussed in the press. So what arguments are we left with? Maybe TOOSOON or CRYSTAL, but given the coverage to date I'm perfectly happy with the NOTE levels and detail. Even less coverage was available for things like Light Peak, but that survived. I'm failing to see any cogent argument for delete or merge that survives even the most basic appraisal. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A laptop is different, it is unique and a full product, not an accessory. AirPort is unique, is a product not an accessory and does things that other routers don't. Now do we have an article for the Apple USB charger brick? Or the Apple USB cable? No because they are not unique EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6: AirPort is unique, is a product not an accessory and does things that other routers don’t. In the same way AirPower does things other (more normal) charging pads don’t.

Yes, we don’t have articles for that USB cable and charger brick, because they are not unique in any way. AirPower is unique.

talk) 19:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

By that logic should we have an article for the Samsung charging brick? It supports Samsung Adaptive Fast Charging, that is unique. But we don't it's an accessory much like AirPower. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 19:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

As has been repeatedly pointed out above, this product has a number of unique features. That EoRdE6 doesn't consider them to be unique is besides the issue, there are plenty of rather RS's that point out these features and even some that make this claim explicitly. That's the bar, and its been met. Unless someone has a ref that says that this is not unique, I'm ready to call for a speedy close here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it for a regular close please, speedy closes should be kept for situations where the votes are all in one direction. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to stretch this out. If you are suggesting, as your choice of words seems to be, that you are abandoning the nom, please do us admins the favor of saying so so we can get on with this instead of having to revisit it in the future. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a different thing from the
Qi wireless charging. Just like how AirPort has its own article, because it does different things from others. Itsquietuptown (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Redirect to~~ WP:PERMASTUB (for now), which makes redirection (or merging if needed) an attractive option - without prejudice against recreation if further coverage occurs. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

MacWorld is very much RS and much more than a passing mention. As to PERMASTUB, the qualifier "for now" indicates that you are missing the entire point of that essay. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Weak keep per the MacWorld source which I failed to find and (IMO) ensures GNG is met.

As for PERMASTUB, yes, I realize it usually applies to articles that will never be improved, and this one will probably be improved as further announcements develop; but
WP:CRYSTAL is a guideline. My argument, admittedly poorly formulated, was that this article can for now include very little if any info, no matter how hard we try to edit it, hence a merge/redirect is not out of place even if the subject meets GNG; and even if we know with reasonable certainty that in the future further info will be available, right now we do not have it, so it has no impact on the argument. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: This is an unreleased product and there is not enough nonspeculative information out there to justify its existence. Yet. If & when the product is released, then
WP:RS be your guides, editors, not your fandom or a desire to be ahead of the curve. Warren -talk- 03:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per Warren above, this product has not been released so it is too soon to make and article out of it. We should wait for it to come out and then this article can be written with better quality sources and materials. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect BEFORE DELETIOn. per TOOSOON. No sense in deleting, as we will soon revert it and make it a proper article when the time comes.L3X1 (distænt write) 01:07, 6 November 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 • mail) 12:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Joy Ballard

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

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

Per
WP:BIO1E Andrei S (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 22:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of any category of
WP:BLP1E anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC).[reply
]

Xxanthippe, pinging to let you know that I did a bit of research on Ballard, made a few updates, added/updated citations including coverage of her in two different BBC articles (different years), and looked a bit more into her role in the reality TV series Educating Cardiff. She was/is the principal (head teacher) of two different schools, has made highly notable changes in education, has the RS coverage needed to pass GNG, and is not a one eventer. All this BLP needs now is expansion using all the available resources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your good work in tidying up the sources since I last looked. Your contributions to Wikipedia might be more productive if you you wrote about people with more intrinsic notability so that nobody has an excuse to drag them off to AfD. There are many women scientists who could be of interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I spent some time researching Ballard and was surprised to see how much coverage she has received over the years. She was featured twice by the BBC, was featured on ITV, on radio, and had a starring in the reality series, Educating Cardiff. There are numerous other independent RS that have published articles about her. This BLP just needs expanding. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for more than just one event.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Atsme. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like it's just a matter of beefing up the article to match the sources that can be found. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- being featured in a notable documentary adds to the encyclopedic relevance of the subject. The article is in an okay shape; an acceptable stub at this point, with decent enough sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources already present in the article showed a pass of
WP:PROF for most cases concerning schoolteachers) and the headline of the Independent article (already visible as a url in the version as nominated) makes clear that it is not a BIO1E case. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I looked at the article, and thought "this can't be a keep", but a news search lit up with hits, so it seems she does indeed meet
WP:GNG. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 2 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Marlene Abigosis

Disappearance of Marlene Abigosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another run-of-the-mill story of a missing person. Wikipedia, however, is
criteria for events. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Support~~ Delete fails
WP:GNG as it does not have any reliable sources; one even leads to another 'source' for the full story. Thanks for posting the notice TheGracefulSlick as this way we all get oversight on what is going on. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom said everything
WP:NOTNEWS, also article sourced with obscure unreliable blog posts Ammarpad (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Passing mentions in a couple of books. Local media. CBC piece. Doesn't add up to GNG or NCRIME. Note for BEFORING - in several sources she is "Yvonne Abigosis" without the Marlene - so there is some name confusion (still doesn't add up to notability - under both names).Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a comprehensive database of missing persons cases; we require some evidence that this passes the
WP:10YT test for enduring and encyclopedic significance, not just verification that it's a thing that happened, before an article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a police blotter or a compendium of true crime stories. Carrite (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CRIME.BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here is above routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 5 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boom Squad

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

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

No evidence of any notability which is hardly surprising for a game yet to be released. No independent sources. Way, way
WP:GNG Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 21:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:TOOSOON. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not enough evidence of notability.
WP:TOOSOON. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Certainly WP:TooSoon - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference given for this article is this game's website, meaning that this article relies too much on primary sources. If one goes to the game's website, one will see that the game will not be released until early November. I am willing to change this contribution to a Keep if this game attracts more media attention after it has been released. However, I think that for the time being, it is better to wait and see what notice this game attracts before having its entry in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 09:01, 31 October 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 • mail) 03:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Martha Laning

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

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

Poorly referenced
routine coverage of her failure to win a seat when she ran for election to the state legislature (which is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article either), and just one piece of coverage announcing her initial appointment as state chair with no evidence of sustained coverage of her work in that role being shown at all. This is not enough sourcing to make a party functionary notable for that fact alone. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laning has only received routine coverage relating to her position as chair of a sub-national branch of a political party. She has not received enough coverage to pass
WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep While there is plenty of routine coverage of Laning, (See HighBeam to confirm), the references cited in the article and those added by myself are meaty and not just namechecks. She was known for her work w/a non-profit first and then went on into politics for the first time in 2013. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the recent changes to the article. Fits GNG easily. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1st (Maliq & D'Essentials album)

1st (Maliq & D'Essentials album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable album, fails
WP:NALBUM, I can't find any sources and the article has zero. Ammarpad (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No encylopedic benefit provided, and sources are lacking. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Album is notable as debut for notable Indonesian artist. Only available sources at present are the liner notes for both the original album and its subsequent reissue. Difficulties in obtaining readily-available credible third-person sources online. Must resort to published archival material (newspapers, magazines, etc.) Hasief (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." — Ammarpad (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NALBUM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Western Force season

2017 Western Force season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article contains no information that is not already available in
off-topic. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Western Force, if any information isn't there already, otherwise delete. As nom has said, this information should be included in the main article on the team. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards,
talk • mail) 15:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 20:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. This information is already appropriately included elsewhere. No need to duplicate it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to include when included elsewhere. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LaFazia

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

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

This is a surname page, but there are no Wikipedia articles on notable people with this surname and it does not meet
WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: m.o.p 20:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 20:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of a list of notable people with this name can be dealt with by removing the set index template leaving us with an article telling us something about the provenance of the name but the Ancestry link is not good enough and I can’t find any
WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Better references will appear as contributors add to the article. Let's give this some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.103.65 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2017‎

Delete Not sure what is the purpose of this article is. Subject is not notable at all. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:42, 5 November 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.
WP:TOOSOON. Plus, the only keeps were sockpuppets. m.o.p 23:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Mason Ji

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

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

Reads like a CV/autobiography. Overabundance of sources aside, there's no real notability to be found - there are plenty of Rhodes scholars and plenty of young U.N. delegates in this world. Additionally, some claims appear to be twisted; for example, no single source repeats the 'youngest delegate in history' claim. Other sources (namely, the ones hosted on Issuu) appear to be doctored, with the article's subject conveniently appearing on rehosted media and not the original copies (compare the original U.N. documents versus the rehosted ones). m.o.p 20:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for pointing out the issues, and yes, I have looked into the sources that appear to have discrepancies with the other UN documents, and have deleted the sources that seem doctored (my apologies for not cross-checking properly). ALL problematic sources have been removed. The UN delegate in history claim was interpreted from multiple news sources that said that the subject was the youngest UN delegate, because it would appear to me that when news sources say "at age 18, he was the youngest UN delegate" could be extrapolated as such. I have deleted sentences that present potentially twisted claims. There was also a source from The Millennial Moment that did document him as the youngest in history, but it was also accompanied by a chapter from the subject himself, so I opted to remove it. Regardless, it is not customary to any degree to be a UN delegate at this age, since country delegates are usually Master's degree graduates, and even very young delegates are in their late-20s by the time they are granted a tour to the UN, with the majority of "young" UN delegates being in their 30s. I think that being a delegate at 18 is definitely something that is noteworthy in this respect, and I also believe notability is established because the subject's involvement seems to have spanned quite a large field, from climate change to nuclear disarmament, and being involved in working groups in addition to the General Assembly, which is also rare, and documented through multiple sources. With regards to the article reading like a CV/autobiography, do you have any suggestions for revising it to be less so? I do think that the subject's age and contributions (both through the UN and through the White House Initiative on AAPIs) are noteworthy and meet notability requirements. Jone.Hu (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)— Jone.Hu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I now realize that the sources later added were problematic and that my statements above are too broad and relatively baseless.
WP:TOOSOON
Because of sourcing problems and insufficient UN sources otherwise, I change my vote to delete.

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:TOOSOON. Certainly a well written CV, however puffery aside, significance of subject not clear from article nor does he seem to meet GNG in a VEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Thank you. Do the news sources and the magazine coverage of the subject not meet GNG? Those are reliable and significant coverages of the subject?Jone.Hu (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student magazines such as Yale Daily News for a Yale student would not typically establish much towards GNG. He's not there yet - not close.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' There seems to be some debate over notability. Subject seems to have lots of source documentation, of which some are reliable, and it does seem that the subject has notable accomplishments (youngest delegate, White House Initiative etc.). I propose cutting down the article to stub length (and include only most reliable sources, like The Associated Press source, the China Hands Magazine source, and the Yale/Rhodes Trust news sources) and turn it into stub class instead of total deletion. Mrque12 (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC) — Mrque12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete After reading all these other contributors' comments, it seems to me that there is not enough notability to justify this article. I change my vote to delete, and perhaps to reintroduce the subject as an article in the future when better sourcing and more notability is established.
sockpuppet account. m.o.p 19:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Remaining articles on citations are still forged/have been edited to include lists of names which are not on original UN documents. The China Hands magazine source was written by students who attended the same undergraduate university in the same year as the subject. Most concerningly, there are no original UN sources which mention the subject of this article. The remaining sources to UN documents on external hosting site were added in October 2017 after this article was originally flagged as a hoax. Broader concerns about not only legitimacy of this page, but whether the subject has had the level of engagement with the UN cited here, and in articles that the subject claims to have engagement with the UN within.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.72 (talk • contribs)

Comment I think that the problem you point to is one of sourcing and not really one of legitimacy/hoax at large. UN functions are pretty opaque and there is just not enough publicly available sourcing to support. I do agree now that this page should be deleted, but I don't think the discussion should be about the subject himself being legitimate/not legitimate. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone.Hu (talk • contribs)

Comment There's a distinct difference between UN functions being opaque, and the absence of any UN sources mentioning the subject. Then, when this is raised in an earlier discussion about the article, five doctored sources appearing on a hosting site that have altered original UN documents. Whether the subject himself is legitimate is not relevant, but the doctoring of UN documents to include his name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.69 (talk • contribs)

Comment You are right. I apologize for this. I was the one who included those sources and it was my fault for including them and not cross-checking them sufficiently. I will watch out for these in the future. Thank you for pointing this out.Jone.Hu (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:TOOSOON. (plus some of the claims "youngest UN delegate ever" need better sourcing.) He is a Rhodes story, but we wait for Rhodes scholars to actually accomplish something before we write pages about them. Allow me to explain why. This story takes place at about this time of year in a student lounge at a graduate school that shall remain unnamed filled with nicely dressed students about to enjoy a formal dinner with the members of the faculty held welcome the newbies. One of the newly entered grad new students had pinned his Phi Beta kappa pin to his lapel. A student who had been there a year or two put his arm around the chap's shoulder and said: Son, we all have those. But we don't wear them. I advise Mr. Ji, or whoever wrote this page thinking he was doing Ji a favor, to put the Phi Beta Kappa pin back in his pocket. As this stage in a career, a scholar and a gentleman only embarrasses himself by boasting about his Rhodes scholarship on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Thank you all for your comments. I agree now that the deletion should go forward until better sourcing is made available (most UN delegates' activities are not made publicly available, unfortunately) and more engagement by the subject is made available later in his career should those contributions be notable. I would like to change my previous vote to delete. Jone.Hu (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "I also believe notability is established because the subject's involvement seems to have spanned quite a large field, from climate change to nuclear disarmament, and being involved in working groups in addition to the General Assembly" there is no evidence of this in any UN documentation. You are simply going off what the subject has said in interviews. The fact that fabricated documents uploaded in 2017 have been fabricated to indicate this is very concerning indeed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.69 (talk • contribs)

Comment I was. You are right. Those documents were obtained from scans, but I wasn't aware that there were discrepancies. I'm so, so sorry for all this confusion! Please do go ahead with the deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone.Hu (talk • contribs)

Comment Scans from where? Seems unlikely that the 2013 Blue Book and other lists of delegates would all be specifically doctored to include the subject. Why not just link to the original UN documents in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.69 (talk • contribs)

Comment The blue book I could not find online, so I went to a friend who had a scanned copy, the other documents were committee working documents passed internally and then archived at the UN library that were not made available online...I know I've done wrong here and should have linked to original documents. I would like to make known that there were no explicit attempts at doctoring. Apologies again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone.Hu (talk • contribs)

Comment"the other documents were committee working documents passed internally and then archived at the UN library that were not made available online" this is plainly untrue. All these documents (including the Blue Book) are available online - just all (mysteriously) without the subject's name in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.72 (talk • contribs)

Comment Thanks so much for all your comments--I'm learning a lot and will be more diligent in my future article contributions. All I could say is that I was told that these were committee drafts, which were draft documents, be it letters, statements, or resolutions (not the final version released to the public, which do not list delegates' names), that list delegates' names solely for record purposes. That's what I was told, beyond that, I don't know. If you notice, the final drafts posted online only list countries or not even that, because those are the final versions. Regardless, you have a very valid concern and I sincerely thank you for voicing your opinions. The other contributors seem to be focusing more on notability, so I think we should probably end this discussion here. I really appreciate it. Jone.Hu (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Thank you both for your contributions. However, this discussion doesn't really belong on AFD. m.o.p 16:43, 30 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Junk

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

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

Non-notable company. Fails
WP:PROMO SPA account. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page is a great ad and is obviously not maintained. (I wonder how many mirror sites are carrying it.)--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sharon Rich

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sharon Rich

Articles for deletion/Sharon Rich (2nd nomination)

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

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

Unclear if this should have passed the first nomination, which was poorly attended. Article has been under promotional pressure for a long time and was recently at ANI for this. Not worth our effort to maintain this article in light of the lack of substantial coverage/marginal-at-best notability Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC) M[reply]

Comment: Just a note that I had tried to find sources out there for this article. The original AfD listed four articles that apparently showed that the person met GNG. However, three of those are now dead. I have asked Cunard if they are able to find them again so I can at least verify some of the information in the article. Right now it looks like a
WP:DEL7 situation but I want to reserve judgement in the hopes that Cunard can pull through with the info. --Majora (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I've reviewed the sources in the first AfD discussion, plus those in the article itself. The idea that the subject meets GNG, or
Sweethearts (book) needs to go too, methinks, but as before I'll wait for a second person to agree with me before nominating. Don't forget all the redirects which are the remnants of what used to be a substantial walled garden. E Eng 21:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I wouldn't nominate the book for deletion as Kirkus saw fit to review it. Kirkus is solid. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kirkus is no longer solid. They review self-published books if the author pays them. It was OK back in 1994, but ohey always published only brief reviews, and i've commented further at the AfD for the book. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG as I mentioned at the other AfD, please provide your links for this. Otherwise, I think we're talking about two different services, Kirkus and Kirkus Indie. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we even discussing this here? The review is about the book, not Sharon Rich. And as regards the book, it's a superficial 12-sentence "review". By these low standards every book mentioned anywhere is notable. E Eng 22:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAUTHOR which talks of a significant/well known work/body of work that has reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, my God. I remember now why I stay away from AfD. DGG, I'm leaving this up to you. Life's too short. E Eng 01:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any news or commentary about Rich in reliable sources beyond the NYT piece. There's a different Sharon J. Rich who has written some scholarly articles[3] and a Sharon Rich who is a financial planner[4][5][6][7][8][9] and a Sharon Rich who is a community activist in upstate New York[10][11][12] and a Sharon Rich who works public relations for Hennessey's Tavern in Southern California[13] but none of these are the author of the Sweethearts book. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In light of new sources, especially the LA Times pieces from '74 and '95, I am changing my !vote. Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Sharon Rich's research is cited by other authors writing about the same topic, as I noted in the book AfD here. Rich is not some unknown person striving for importance. Her work significantly changed the subject of the Eddy and MacDonald biographies. Subsequent authors writing about the topic must define themselves relative to the stance taken by Rich. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ^{changed because of new sources added 22:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)} ~~Delete & redirect~~ - to
Sweethearts (book). ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)^{strike 04:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)}[reply
]

Don't waste your time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweethearts (book). E Eng 02:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments for D are compelling. My thoughts from the beginning were to merge the book and author. Now I'm struggling over fancruft vs historic value, which in this particular instance is notable. Perhaps NEXIST also applies here? Jytdog's point about promotion is certainly worthy of concern - there's no denying promotion is a problem on WP, especially where books, movies, and music are concerned - but then
WP:AUTHOR #3 comes to mind. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Please see the references I added to the article. She was profiled first in the 70s for her first book, then later for her work on Sweethearts, which is notable, too. She has been covered in NY Times, LA Times and other reliable sources. Ping @Atsme, EEng, and Binksternet: to see what you think of the new sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I watched those changes; they are here. This is mostly fancruft kind of stuff, like the award from the "Entertainment Book Club" whatever that is. She is a super-fan for sure. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. E Eng 22:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Delete to punish some content contributors for contributing the wrong content" is not one of our pillars. Other issues were resolved at the previous AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about punishing anyone. It is about whether the subject is important enough for the volunteer community to keep putting effort into maintaining neutrality in the face of relentless promotional pressure. In my view, it isn't. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One possibly significant book is not enough to justify two articles--trying to do that is promotional. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and , Megalibrarygirl, Kirkus and KirkusIndie are two halves of the same company. See their website. Such an intimate connection is in my opinion enough to make the entire company unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the low end of notability, but enough to keep this article, especially if the book details are merged here. Possibly disambiguate, as there's no clear case that this is the most notable Sharon Rich; however I'm not sure if any of the other Sharon Rich's have enough content to justify an article.
π, ν) 23:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree, Power-enwiki, and believe merging will resolve the N issues while maintaining the historic significance of the book and the author's notability. Atsme 📞📧 00:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of additional sourcing by
Power~enwiki. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Anybody talking about a Wikipedia article as "this blog" is incompetent to be !voting in an AfD. For pete's sake.~~ ~~Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)~~ (i need glasses; my apologies Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Pssst...Jytdog - that's BIOG as in biography...not blog. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additional material establishes notability. The article is a little light, but I must point out that Kirkus Reviews are HIGHLY notable and well worth including here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content added by Megalibrary girl was crap (again what is the "entertainment book club"?) and the kirkus review is about the book; N is not inherited.
In response to your question (and please forgive me for using a blog but it explains it without me having to search further) see this. One could say it's "historic"? Goshes...to think the 70s is now historic. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not a really noteworthy award. fancruft. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in its current state passes the basic editorial requirements for inclusion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage as shown by the additions to the article since it was nominated. gongshow  talk 08:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I said at the top I was reserving judgement to see if someone could find what I could not. Apparently I need to improve my searching abilities as they were severely lacking in this case. Now that there are good sources to verify content my original issues has been resolved. A merge of her book into this article would probably be a good idea and I'm going to say as much at the other AfD. --Majora (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

Turner, Patricia C. (1993-10-18). "Hearing Their Love Call". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
The article notes:

Now, almost 60 years later, Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy are alive and vibrant, at least in the hearts of those who pay $40 a year to belong to the Mac/Eddy Club, which is based at 101 Cedar Lane, Teaneck. There are 2,800 of these people, according to Sharon Rich, the Teaneck resident whose home serves as headquarters even as she serves as president.
Rich co-founded the organization in 1977 with Diane Goodrich of New York City.
...
Rich, for instance, is 39 years old; the vice president of Mac/Eddy is 34 - "youngsters," she called them.
Rich's introduction to the subject is unusual.
Growing up in a suburb of Los Angeles, she and others from her high school honor society did volunteer work at the Motion Picture Home.
She was assigned to assist Jeanette MacDonald's older sister, Blossom Rock, in a play the home was putting on. Rock had suffered a stroke.
"We became friends and hit it off," Rich said of Rock, a character actor from the 1930s under her stage name Marie Blake, and the grandmother to the Addams Family in the 1960s under her own name.
...
Years later, Rich would complete a biography of the two movie idols, and the affair they had "on and off for 30 years."

Yampert, Rick de (2004-05-21). "Author claims to reveal 'Hollywood's biggest cover-up'". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
The article notes:

Rich was a fledgling 16-year-old writer in her native Woodland Hills, in the Los Angeles area, when she met MacDonald's sister Blossom Rock, who had portrayed Grandmama in the TV show "The Addams Family." Rich had never heard of Jeanette MacDonald or Nelson Eddy.
"When I learned from Blossom there had been a romance between Jeanette and Nelson, it meant nothing to me," Rich says. That is, until she "started reading in the film history books that they hated each other off-screen. I asked Blossom, 'Why are you telling me one thing and the books say
something else?' When she started telling me the story, I realized this is one of Hollywood's biggest cover-ups, and one of its most tragic cover-ups."
When Rich decided to plunge ahead and write a book about the affair, she met resistance. Eddy's widow, Ann, and MacDonald's widower, Gene Raymond, were still alive but wouldn't discuss the adulterous romance between their famous spouses. In fact, Rich says, Ann Eddy and Raymond "went overboard trying to keep the story suppressed." Was pursuing the book "harsh on them?" Rich asks herself. "I imagine so." But, she adds, she knew "the story was true" and "they were public figures."
...
"Sweethearts," which was published in 1994 and updated for a new edition in 2001, includes 56 pages of documentation detailing Rich's sources, which included love letters, diaries, FBI records, personal interviews and unpublished memoirs.
In the new edition's preface, Rich writes: "There are many people who were friends and still vehemently deny any relationship - because Jeanette and/or Nelson themselves never spoke of it to them or denied it themselves."

Bawden, Jim (1996-05-17). "Screen lovebirds took roles to heart". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
The article notes:

Rich is a New York writer who was editing an opera magazine when she get hooked on the "MacEddy" movies. "I became friends with Jeanette's sister, Blossom Rock, who told me about their clandestine love affair. Both of them had married other people and because it was the 1930s any scandal would have wrecked their careers. Jeanette's image was very much that of a lady. They went on loving each other to the day Jeanette died."
Rich was able to obtain letters Nelson had written Jeanette revealing all but says "the reaction of some fans was furious. The British chapter threatened to picket me if I came to their convention. But others are relieved the truth is finally out. Nelson was quite a womanizer and Jeanette finally had had enough and married actor Gene Raymond for stability.
"That didn't stop her from caring for Nelson. It's just like in their movies when they sing 'Indian Love Call,' isn't it?"

Brozan, Nadine (1995-02-17). "Chronicle". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
The article notes:

SHARON RICH, the author of three books about Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, will be making a pilgrimage to Washington next Friday on behalf of the two crooners, who appeared together in eight films.
It's not fair, Ms. Rich said, that the movie stars' likenesses have never been on a United States postage stamp. Ms. Rich, who is also head of Eddy-MacDonald fan club, has collected 20,000 signatures on a petition and will take them to the capital "to toss them on the desk of the person in charge of making decisions" at the Postal Service. In addition, she will bring with her a contingent of other fans who will march along with her singing "Indian Love Call," the couple's famous duet.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Sharon Rich to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 17:40, 4 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bassam Shakir

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, Govvy (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable footballer. Although considering how permissive the football notability guidelines are, it is hard to believe there is such a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 3 November 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. Withdrawn by nominator after additional sources found.
π, ν) 02:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The LeBrons

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

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

Fails
WP:NOTNEWS is also relevant. —Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ as per nom. This appears to be an advertising campaign, and not a particularly notable one.
π, ν) 20:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Vote struck. I still don't like the current content, but Northamerica1000 has found more than enough to demonstrate notability.
π, ν) 00:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Meets
WP:GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

References

The New York Times

African Americans on Television: Race-ing for Ratings.
ABC-CLIO. pp. 218–221 (and possibly beyond) – p. 218, p. 219, p. 220

Commodified and Criminalized: New Racism and African Americans in Contemporary Sports. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 139.

Studies in Symbolic Interaction. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 184.

LeBron James vs. the NBA: The Case for the NBA's Greatest Player. Triumph Books. pp. pt66–67.

ESPN

The Daily Dot

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage identified above. --Michig (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per North America. I was able to find additional sources as well, such as Vibe, Business Insider, and The Sporting News. Coverage appears to stretch from 2009 to at least 2016. That would seem to meet
WP:SUSTAINED. CThomas³ (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw One of those (hopefully rare) times where I'm humbled at what I missed in doing
WP:BEFORE. I'm still not fully convinced this needs a standalone article (merge?), but acknowledge that GNG presumes it's notable. (I dont have time to formally close this currently).—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 30 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Law

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

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

Completely unreferenced
Barbara Law who was about a decade and a half younger than this one and was Irish/Canadian rather than British. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with better access to pre-Googlable British media than I've got can find enough archived reliable source coverage about her to do better than this -- but if after six years nobody's been arsed to add anything more than somebody else's IMDb profile as "referencing", we can't just hang onto it indefinitely in this state. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - this article has no references nor citations at all, and the content of this article does not name any songs which this singer has performed. It seems clear that this article would fail
WP: Music. Vorbee (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She was clearly a real person and I've found some tidbits about her online and in databases, but they're not enough. Also gets mixed up with another Barbara Law. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Too many Wikipedia articles survive for too long with virtually no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 3 November 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 to delete, and leaning towards "keep", although several editors are only mildly inclined in that direction. bd2412 T 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Guggenheim

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

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

Article on a non-notable person is sourced to non-RS except for one fleeting mention in Politico. Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proposed deletion is ludicrous. If you believe there are not enough sources for you, find some more, don't propose deletion! Though the three there are are sufficient.

Scott has been quoted by WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghans-policy-wonk-turned-president-visits-u-s-1426875619), New Yorker, (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/04/ashraf-ghani-afghanistans-theorist-in-chief), Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/29/ashraf-ghanis-struggle/), RFERL, (https://www.rferl.org/a/Ashraf_Ghani_Afghanistans_Unlikely_Politician_/1793394.html) and many more, including academic papers. This is quite enough to establish notability.

Try actually reviewing the notability criteria, you've already been called out by another editor for wrongly trying to use speedy delete, this is no better. To help you out: Before nominating an article for Articles for deletion (AfD):

Consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.

First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Now I know you didn't do any of these things because the article was proposed for deletion seconds after being created.Kuching7102 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for now -- there's an in-depth piece in the Politico Magazine, where he appears to be a significant figure in Afgan politics: "To get something done in Afghanistan, you need to know Scott Guggenheim. But even the ultimate fixer isn’t sure anyone can solve the country’s problems." This seems like a sufficient claim of significance. Source: "The Man Who Thought He Could Fix Afghanistan". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep. Some coverage prior to Politico- [14], [15], [16], [17]. Beyond this he seems to be called to comment on Afghan affairs quite a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think the nomination for deletion was way too soon - the same day the article was made. I would give it a few weeks before nominating for deletion. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:45, 5 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan presidential election in Galle, 2015

Sri Lankan presidential election in Galle, 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Similar to previous AfDs on election results at levels that are irrelevent to the result (e.g.
Sri_Lankan_presidential_election,_2015#District. Also nominating the articles below. Number 5 7 13:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sri Lankan presidential election in Kurunegala, 2015

Sri Lankan presidential election in Hambantota, 2015

Delete - Article provides no content that isn't provided in
Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015 and can't be provided in Galle Electoral District. Please note that a similar article, Sri Lankan presidential election in Matara, 2015, was deleted in a previous Afd.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Number 57 and as noted above it can be provided in
Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015 and Galle Electoral District.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article only duplicates information found in other articles, as per noms & Obi2canibe’s comments. No need for these articles to exist. Dan arndt (talk) 23:24, 3 November 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 Get Weird. and full protect redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grown (Little Mix song)

Grown (Little Mix song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Not sure if this is actually notable. It has definitely been covered in third-party sources (referenced in the article), but the article was redirected at least twice and the song did not chart outside the UK. Jc86035 (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (again) to
WP:INHERITED and doesn't make it notable. Does the length of the song really need a citation? In the composition section, the Fuse.tv source merely lists some of the author's favourite lyrics from the album, without providing any commentary or critical appraisal. The Daily Mail interview doesn't mention the song at all. Of the critical appraisals, only the Rolling Stone one is an RS and mentions the song in passing as part of a wider appraisal of its parent album. So the song was performed live – big deal, so are many songs, and it doesn't make them notable. The track was released as a promotional single with a video, rather than a full single release, hence its brief appearance in the lower reaches of the UK singles chart (effectively the last two citations are the same thing) – WP:NSONG states that a song may be notable if it charts, but one week on one chart by a song that didn't get a full release doesn't cut it for me, and coupled with the lack of reliable sources to create even a stub article, this should be redirected to the parent album. Richard3120 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect - Per Richard above, lack of in-depth coverage in
talk) 13:34, 2 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenroy Johnson

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

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

Being a failed political candidate is not notable, subject fails all criteria at
WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Please note that I've updated the article an removed what was needed, this peorsn is a politician that has been around since 2005 an was unsuccessful to be elected to political cabinet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStevEO722 (talk • contribs)

Delete.
WP:POLITICIAN requires they must "have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office", or "received significant press coverage". Neither is asserted here, and it very strongly appears that neither applies here. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As simply being a failed candidate for political office does not qualify for notability under
WP:NPOL and there is no other evidence of significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Being an unsuccessful candidate for political office does not pass
WP:NPOL — a person has to win election and thereby hold office to make it into Wikipedia on politician grounds — but there's no evidence being shown here that he has any preexisting notability for any other reason, which is the only other way a candidate gets an article without winning the seat first. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete it took a bit of reading, because the wording is non-standard. However this is a guy who was a failed candidate, and failed candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 5 November 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thadi Balaji

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

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

Does not meet
WP:RS, and the article includes no titles of the Kollywood movies he has supposedly been in. (No IMDb entry, either, at least not with this transcription of his name - and that is unusual, because even bit-part actors tend to get themselves an IMDb listing.) bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Addition/correction to the above: he apparently had a small role in WP:NACTOR though, because all his appearances in films appear to be minor. --bonadea contributions talk 11:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails
WP:NACTOR. FITINDIA 12:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NACTOR as of now upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiltan threat

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

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

Non notable subject. Reliable sources don't mention such thing as a "Chilean threat" as confirmed through a
WP:BEFORE search. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. I am assuming this article is referring to environmental threats to Koh-i-Chiltan. The fact that articles currently lack sources, or may not be written in perfect English, is not a valid reason for deletion. We can use our brains and not just Google to look beyond the search term "Chiltan threat" --Animalparty! (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the content was sourced, this would obviously be a Merge to
π, ν) 04:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:V, our most core content policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 5 November 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 Jyukai (band). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshi Akari

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

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

No references, no claim of notability (tagged as such since August 2011) fails
WP:GNG. Richhoncho (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Jyukai (band). We need a lot more than this to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jyukai (band) as no references and little content Atlantic306 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 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. Michig (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mathur

R. K. Mathur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem like a very substantial commission and the only refs support that this person is appointed head of it. Doesn't rise to
WP:BIO notability. DMacks (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Appointed civil servants don't get an automatic notability pass just for existing, but "he exists" is all that this article actually shows or sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and properly source something much more substantial about him than this, but this as written just isn't even close to enough. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a run of the mill nominated position holder, he in an officer of the
Chief Secretary (India) in Tripura. I've sorta expanded the article to include some of this info. —SpacemanSpiff 05:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SpacemanSpiff's improvements. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Defence secretary, enough said,
satisfied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep secDef of a major state.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tangible user interface. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Physical icon

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

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

Patent that does not pass
WP:GNG and is not notable on its own. Wumbolo (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, not notable. ~~CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)~~ Merge to tangible user interface. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ I added six sources from good publicaitons. This is a widely cited term in computer science.96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to merge with tangible user interface, as that article covers much of the same ground.96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The short four-sentence article is probably not needed as a stand alone, but could be merged into the Tangible user interface article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: this basic concept has been shown many times, for instance in the MS Surface, but it was not referred to as such. It appears this is simply the name used to refer to the concept in one specific instance, so merging it to an article on tangible or metalDesk seems like the right solution. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:17, 31 October 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Olita

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ivan Olita

Articles for deletion/Ivan Olita (2nd nomination)

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

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

Heavily promoted article, that fails
WP:FILMMAKER. The article notability tag was removed by SPA account. The COI tag was removed by user User talk:ExploreWiki, who was indefo blocked, without the COI being addressed. The refs are a mix of blog and youtube. Lots of refs are dud. At the last Afd, which was borderline keep, one or two insta SPA accounts were created and came into vote, which I missed. Requesting delete for continual abuse of WP Terms of Use.scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

It is worth noting that the whole article has been created by a whole bunch of SPA accounts. scope_creep (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- despite the over-abundance of refs, this fails
WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It is worth looking to see how it has been built up, all by SPA accounts. it starts with SPA User talk:Amliethomas who comes in at 9:40 and by 14:15 there is a 12k article. 112.196.70.10 adds another 4k. 110.225.194.18 comes in and adds 8bytes. 116.74.57.6 comes in changes 1 character. 122.173.132.245 adds 7 bytes. 103.41.38.183 takes 7 away. And then User:ExploreWiki, who now blocked indefinently, does a copyedit. Then spa 184.164.147.3 removes several characters. All the while, when normal WP editors are interleaving work between the SPA accounts. I think it is a Paid for article. scope_creep (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a beginner director but getting more media attention lately specifically after the release of his MUXES doc that resonated with the LGBT festivals and community [18] 142.129.124.207

Comment Brand new SPA IP account just created to come in and vote. scope_creep (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The reference is a listing for the festival, and as such is not notable. scope_creep (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why a film listing for arguably the most important LGBT festival in the US is not notable. Just googled the doc and found it was awarded at SF SHORTS as well <ref>http://sfshorts.com/awards/2017_films.html</ref> Also, I did not create any new account, I just use my IP as a contributor

Notability is not inherited, i.e.
WP:INHERITED. It is merely a film listing and is not notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 scope_creep (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tending towards delete, but not very trafficked. Giving it a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete scope_creep, I just reviewed Wikipedia policy you suggested me and this is pure promotional article. My vote is for deletion asap. EShami (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Fee

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

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

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep There is enough on the web to improve the article, he seems to be well known in the comic world, it requires improvement not deleting. Govvy (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! But we need to see references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and to lend weight to your !vote. If you find a couple, please post them here.
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nothing indicates he is a notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing? Directing the blockbuster 2017
WP:GNG and media mentions for night club reviews. WP is going to delete this and keep that? Come on. Where is the continuity of requirement guidelines? Maineartists (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - he apparently directed a film that made $378.9m dollars. I think that makes him a notable filmmaker. I've added two new sources. Blythwood (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Collider.com reference is essentially a transcript of an interview and fails as a PRIMARY source. Similarly, the slashfilm.com reference is an interview and fails as a PRIMARY source.
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Disagree. An interview by a reputable news organisation shows that the person is considered of interest to their readership. He clearly meets sections 3 and 4 of
WP:ARTIST: he's the director of a significant work which has been widely reviewed. Blythwood (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In response to references not being PRIMARY sources:
WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Maineartists (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Director of Pixar's Cars 3. We're done. Carrite (talk) 06:49, 3 November 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Waterland

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

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

Fails GNG, PROMO. South Nashua (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have never been to this park. I am doing this because I wanted to help clear some requested articles from the backlog. I checked the history of "Requested Articles" and found this to be on the page for years. I am a dedicated member of
WP:APARKS and created this to help expand the growing theme park section of wikipedia. I am dedicated to clearing backlogs and making the encyclopedia a better place. I am not promoting this location in anyway, If I am, I will change the language. I think if dedicated editors can get to this article, it could make a fine addition to the encyclopedia. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Not a lot of independent coverage found ([19], [20], [21]). Is this a significant enough attraction to be included here? --Michig (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't get that impression. Sorry I didn't elaborate further in the nom, I was on the fence on whether this should be a prod, it seemed pretty routinely not notable. South Nashua (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 29 October 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi İpekçi Park

Abdi İpekçi Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This is a park, just a park, and one with no claim to notability. Fails
WP:DENY makes a strong delete case. Just Chilling (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument is also up for deletion.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an ordinary park. The references don't do anything to show notability. The king of the sun (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked through some references to it, but it's almost universally about things that have happened in the park, rather than the park itself being notable for some reason. Passing references don't make for a good basis for an article here. A park can't gain notability via inheritance (see
WP:NGEO. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep We have articles on parks like this for most major cities in North America and Northern Europe, goegraphical locations are usually notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Google Books [22] gets plenty of hits, some describing the physical park in some depth and some talking about what people do or have done there, or plan to do to it. Notability is nothing to do with the present state of the article or whether the park is unusual in some way. It is purely about on whether the park has been noted, and that is certainly the case here. My Turkish is a bit weak, but selective cut-and-paste of snippets from the search results into Google Translate yields the following:
We read in the newspapers last week; Ankara Municipality decided to remove the Hittite Monument in Yenişehir and change the names of the Lausanne Field and the Abdi Ipekci Park. On this, journalists, the Prime Minister from the Presidential ...

5 June 1979 Abdi Ipekci Park, founded on the World Environment Day, is spread over an area of 60 000 m2 and has a 5-acre pool, fountains, amphitheater, children's garden and flower gardens. ...

In Ankara Abdi Silk Park (Figure 22) and in the pools of the Sivas Government Square, the traditional fountain fountain form is used only as a decorative motif in some modern water architectural examples. Susuyanlar water ...

Even if these lands were not in the hands of the municipality, they could not see the project, the people concerned, the superiors, the Abdi Silkist Park project. By making a generalization, for whatever reason, the protection of the soil that is in the hands of the Ankara Municipality ...

With the transfer of the present place of the present, a green belt will be formed which is connected with the Abdi Ipekci Park and connected to the Kurtuluş Park. As a green field measure against Ankara air pollution, if the city is surrounded by a green belt, the air caused by the heat difference between the city and the city, ...

The Headscarf Memorandum Anneleri Platform continues to expand the Protest of the Headscarf Legislative Clothes held in Ankara every Saturday at the Hacibayram Mosque and every Pa: zar Abdi Ipekci Park. ...

On March 1, 1990, Saturday, the police radios in Ankara Abdi Silk Park were receiving more or less exciting speeches. Because Hacettepe Salim in the park could not perform his art with his unique taste. The name "Performance" ...

650 people stayed in the Abdi Silk Park for four nights. At the end of four days, the wait was decided to maintain groups of 100 people alternately. When Sener's 10 days are over, the earthquake victims are now with a group of 500 people ...

A committee was set up in the municipality with contributions: "Volunteer Committee of Friends of Animals" The committee made its first performance in Abdi Ipekci Park on Saturday. The call of the committee is the result of the captains of the capital parked with cats and dogs ...

Looking up from above, a ridiculous, meaningless crowd moves towards Abdi Ipekci Park. You're in that crowd. You had a protest telegraph from the Red Crescent Post. Students from other universities come together and press ...

It certainly seems to be an interesting place. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These certainly attest to the park existing, but from what I can tell none of them attest to the park being notable. These are passing mentions in text that otherwise isn't focused on the park. Sure, things happen in the park. That doesn't make it notable either, as
WP:GNG #1), and not just trivial mentions as demonstrated above? Apparently not. Is it on some form of a national historic register? Apparently not. I'd be quite happy to shift my delete recommendation. However, though I thank you for finding these mentions, none of them rise to any sort of level that attests to the park itself being notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

These are just the 2-line snippets that Google displays in the list of search results. Several of these sources presumably go on to say a good deal more about the park, enough to establish general notability. For example, if you click on the second search result you get three snippets out of 9 pages that mention the park. Again, I don't speak Turkish, but the three that are shown seem to be discussing a plan to build a municipal palace in the park, describing the park, and describing how the park makes the city more livable. That is, they give in-depth coverage. This is no surprise. Any park in the downtown of a major city is likely to be well-discussed, e.g. Washington Square Park. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Washington Square Park is iconic as the references on that article can attest to. I don't think that we can use that park as a wide paint brush to presume that all city parks are notable. I could just as well cite Chelsea Park in NYC, which is hardly iconic (and we don't have an article on that park, and don't even mention it on
List of New York City parks). As to the Turkish links; I agree the park is mentioned. But "presumably" isn't enough to go on. Failing translation, we don't know how its mentioned. 9 mentions in a book spanning 255 pages doesn't seem more than trivial mention to me. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Three visible paragraphs devoted to the park count as in-depth. I assume there is much more in the hidden parts of the book and in the many other books in the search results. Check the street view of Abdi Ipekci Park. Washington Square Park is small and dull by comparison. Abdi Ipekci Park is newer, and I gather the decision to create it on valuable downtown land was the subject of much debate, as was selecting the design and artwork, clearing and construction. Then there were political debates about the name. And of course the sources discuss the use that has been made of it. Lots to write about, for someone who speaks Turkish. Let's try to avoid systemic bias. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Someone with far too much time on their hands just started an article on Chelsea Park in NYC (see above). It is far from iconic and seems very mundane compared to this one but, like this one, it has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A municipal park connected with an eponymous notable figure, featuring sculpture art of historical and political nature, and assertions of being the location of notable political activity. It needs work and expansion, and per Aymatth2 is extensively recognized in cursory searches, but I don't see any reason to delete on notability grounds. At bare minimum it can be merged with Abdi İpekçi until more substantive work is done. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against a possible refund if future productions yield more substantial notability.
T
02:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland Musical (1997)

Alice in Wonderland Musical (1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be an adaptation for use in community theatre so no professional productions, and does not appear to have significant coverage in independent sources. Boneymau (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Depends on what constitutes "professional". 2008 production was staged by the Fort Collins Childrens' Theater, an organization employing paid professional actors (for evidence of production, see cached article in local Style mag [23] and also YouTube video of a "professionally done" production number from that production [24]), as was a 2011 production staged by EmilyAnn theater company of Wimberley, Texas, so "no professional productions" is a false statement. And a clearer definition of "significant coverage" is needed. Here is a link to old public notice of the EmilyAnn production: [25]. There are many more such notices on the web.Msirt (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Author has "paper trail" of 87 international licensees of the production.Msirt (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for context,
WP:GNG. Boneymau (talk) 25:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Although there may be a
WP:COI because I am a co-author, it should be noted that I did not create the page originally. It was posted unbeknownst to me by a participant in one of it's many productions. I discovered it quite by accident, but have taken on it's maintenance since then, since the original required corrections & syntax editing. Additional historical information and external links were added by me and I have continually monitored those links for viability.Msirt (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Small edit.Msirt (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Administrator note I've struck the duplicate !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never produced in any notable, professional venues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Struck duplicate !vote info reposted as comment: "Author has "paper trail" of 87 international licensees of the production".Msirt (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Comment: (in answer to "delete" by John Pack Lambert) Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts of Fort Collins, CO, which served as the venue of the 2008 production would seem to be a professional venue [26].Msirt (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have struck this new duplicate "keep" !vote. Msirt: Your comment here still stands; no need to post it again. It's just that you're only allowed one bold "Keep" on a page like this. More than one, and the wiki-deletionists start crying "Off with his page!" -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you Gpc62. Just learning the ropes here. Hadn't realized what !vote was and that "Keep" was one of themMsirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Off with his page!" Cute. Just got the joke. A little slow this morning.

Comment: (to original critique by Boneymau) "Appears to be an adaptation for use in community theatre" assumes an intention of sole purpose, whereas the production as stated on the production website [27] is intended for both professional and community organizations. And certainly, the Disney stage version (which is noted under the Disney Franchise WP article [28]), plays for more "community organizations" than it does for "professional ones". In fact, it's not a stretch to imagine that distribution as Disney's commercial goal. As has been pointed out, I am co-author (and composer of the score) and I will testify personally that my first intention is for this to be produced professionally (as it has been on the occasions noted), since the music is sophisticated and is done more justice by professional artists.Msirt (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't know if any of the productions count as "professional" by Wikipedia's standards, but this musical has been seeing productions for the past 20 years. To me that's enough to warrant keeping the page. The nominator's dismissive "seems to be an adaptation for use in community theaters" had me expecting to find that it was merely an adaptation of some other musical version of the book. No, it's an original adaptation (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) of the book. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not trying to out anyone, but this article is a very obvious case of COI, as it was written by a cast member and substantially contributed to by the coauthor/composer/lyricist. I'm not ready to cast a !vote yet, but that fact should be noted here. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Comment by Softlavender that author wrote the article is completely untrue. Please check the history. As stated above, it was posted unbeknownst to me by a participant in one of it's many productions. I discovered it quite by accident, but have taken on it's maintenance since then, since the original required corrections & syntax editing. Additional historical information and external links were added by me and I have continually monitored those links for viability. Here is the creation entry: (cur | prev) 14:55, 31 December 2014‎ Iloveyouallforevernowdie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,264 bytes) (+7,264)‎ . .Msirt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The creators are not notable, it has never had a production that received any national press, and never produced at a recognized regional theatre company. The sources are mostly very weak, including blogs. Certainly the cast list of the amateur cast of the "Kids on Stage" production in Staten Island, sponsored by the Parks Department, should be deleted. The co-author claims above that the EmilyAnn production was "professional", but it seems to be more like a summer camp program. The Fort Collins production was definitely community theatre -- the article cited above says that it is a "local adult theater group producing live theater for children ... [a] long-running volunteer group." Therefore, it appears that the adaptation has never been produced by a professional company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re: "Creators are not notable". A Google of my name "Michael Sirotta", will show I have some notability in the New York theater scene as a theater musician/composer, having been composer in residence at
Pasolini's "Pylade" at La mama [31], I receive a strong compliment for my score for the production.Msirt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: The Cast of the "Kids on Stage" entry should not be deleted because it is historically the cast of the world premiere. Original creator of the page had listed the cast he/she was in as the original cast. I corrected that when I discovered the article.Msirt (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: EmilyAnn and FCCT may have volunteer administrations, but they do hire professional directors and performers to augment community participants. So it's a bit of a grey area of the level of "professionalism" these productions exhibit. And, as commented above, more "recognized" children's shows (such as Disney's) are mostly taken up by community enterprises, and yet they qualify for mention in WP.Msirt (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article about a work that does not meet notability guidelines at all. A few minor local (non-professional) productions with even fewer very minor local reviews. Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Local? There will be an upcoming production in Dubai in March, 2018. There have been 87 licenses thoughout the US and internationally. I'd call that more than "a few".Msirt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, small, local, obscure, non-professional productions; with zero notable reviews. In fact, only one review all, from the Staten Island Advance in 1997. Softlavender (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been other "local" as you call it reviews, that given the longevity of this production, have lapsed online. However, none of this GNG complaint takes into account that the show has been seen by thousands of audience members over it's long tenure. And it especially prejudices against young people as counting in any test of notoriety.Msirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have not corrected your false assertion of my authorship of the article.Msirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you created the article. You have contributed more than 20% of it, and have made more than 70% of the edits: [32]. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your quote: "this article is a very obvious case of COI, as it was written by the coauthor/composer/lyricist". That's a pretty blanket statement of original authorship. The fact that the article was not created by me takes a lot of weight of a COI charge against me. The article as originally posted needed correcting and called for additional details, which I was in a position to do. If there's a COI in that, I'd say I had an interest but there's no conflict here on my part as I'm only arguing the merits.Msirt (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you created the article. You have contributed more than 20% of it, and have made more than 70% of the edits: [33]. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Article written by" would be understood by most readers as "created by". An entirely misleading statement.Msirt (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you created the article. You have contributed more than 20% of it, and have made more than 70% of the edits: [34]. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I contributed to it, because I neither "wrote it", nor "created it", there is no COI.Msirt (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You substantially contributed to it, and it was created by a cast member, so it is entirely COI. I have amended my post above. Please learn to properly indent your posts to nest correctly (I have had to do that for you three times so far), and remember to sign your posts (I have now done that for you). Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by a cast member whose identity is unknown to me that I have absolutely no connection to, from some production removed from my locale. The originator of the article has no vested interest in the production other than having had such a positive experience in participating, felt it worth taking the trouble to create the WP article. Consequently, this "creator" is not arguing the case. This weakens the COI charge against the creator, I feel. But I, only having an interest making sure the information was correct, current, and robust in details of the material, see less of a COI issue in my contributions, edits and also arguing of the merits here. Thank you for the correction as noted. Advice taken on formatting.Msirt (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion has led me to probe further into what counts as a promotion on WP. Consequently, I discovered that having an external link to the production website constitutes such an infraction. That link has now been removed. The article now simply states facts.Msirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks national reviews, coverage is local only. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 6 November 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the day

Tip of the day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not pass
WP:GNG. I can only see the examples section expanded. Wumbolo (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi. For some reason, I got summoned here. Out of curiosity, I have some questions for you... To prove notability, do you need a citation from a source about TOTDs in general? Or will a citation from coverage of any TOTD feature do? If a TOTD feature is notable, then by extension, the concept itself is too, right? Like the relationship between Dear Abby and advice column? Just checking. The Transhumanist 21:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's been a decade to provide some evidence that this is a noteworthy topic, and still a stubborn absence of sources. There's also no chance that this is actually the primary usage of the term; I'd estimate that well over 90% of uses of the phrase "tip of the day" relate to sports betting and don't actually mean "piece of advice given daily" but "piece of advice given on the day of the big game/horse race". ‑
Iridescent 22:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Lack of progress in developing this article is not a valid reason to support deleting it.
WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – using google, you can find tip of the day web features on many subjects. I even ran into one on meditation. The Transhumanist 10:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Tip of the day is a concept quite appropriate for an encyclopaedia. It is not just a word to be left for a dictionary, even if its meaning is self-explanatory. As a concept, it falls well within the acceptable limits defined in
WP:WAX, but it is worth pointing out there are actually parallels in many articles such as Online help; FAQ and Question. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, notable as a concept. I removed the Wikipiedia TOTD stuff per
b} 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep notable concept with multiple results in any search performaed. Article is fairly referenced. The Wikipedia TOD is clear undue problem but it has since been removed any other concern can be fixed too. Once subject is notable
deletion is not solution because of fixable problem — Ammarpad (talk) 15:49, 4 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shivasri Kanchi

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

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

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

contested speedy. Fails
S.S. Raja Mouli does not make him notable and notability is not inherited. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not inherited and fails all mentioned criteria Spiderone 09:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article featuring family photo-album pictures, which generally indicates sourcing close to the subject. A Times of India source announces that the subject set up a Facebook account in January 2017, but that is hardly noteworthy in itself. Neither that nor other recent mentions such as this brief mention provide evidence of attained
encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 29 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meghraj Rajebhosle

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

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

Not much in coverage. Fails
WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
talk, contribs) 01:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 6 November 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andexelt

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

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

declined proposed deltion. There's a lack of sources which discuss the album independently of the artist. Walokia (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have incorporated three reviews into the article; enough coverage to satisfy
WP:NALBUM. gongshow  talk 04:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Because article has been
improved significantly by Gongshow. It now changed from this poor shape to now this. It is also important for closing Admin to not forget, the nominator Walokia (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock and has been blocked indefinitely. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:56, 3 November 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 for lack of sources supporting encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Cadiou

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

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

The article about the living person is lacking adequate reliable sources to prove the accuracy of the content provided by the page creator. Abishe (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, this literally just states that he exists as a journalist and deputy mayor, sourcing the fact only to a single newspaper blurb about his initial candidacy in the municipal election which strictly speaking doesn't even verify that he actually won the election in the first place. But being a deputy mayor is not an automatic
WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a hell of a lot better than this, but nothing here guarantees him a Wikipedia article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: it can be fixed , please take good look to his Wikipedia french page , this just Another case of confusing article qualiity with Notability , the article meet
~~WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply
]

The French article certainly has a lot more content than this, but what it doesn't have is a GNG-satisfying volume of
WP:NPOL #2 — every municipal councillor in every town could always show three pieces of purely local coverage, whereas our notability standards for local politicians require substantial evidence that he's significantly more notable than the norm for that level of office by virtue of having garnered a lot more coverage than most others could show. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

comment i told you this article can be fixed, it need more work, ~~Samat lib (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC) but i have added more sources to the article .Samat lib (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Reference-bombing one statement with a string of 11 sources, while adding no actual substance to expand the article to say any more than it already said, is not "fixing" anything. As I said, what we require is evidence that he's substantially more notable than most other deputy mayors of most other places, by virtue of having garnered substantially more coverage than most other deputy mayors of most other places could show, and what you've added to the article is not demonstrating that at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

comment notable French journalist
~~WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Note to admin Samat lib has been blocked for sockpuppetry per this block log

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:JOURNALIST i.e all the professions claimed. And attempt to ref-bomb 1 claim while substantial text is unreferenced shows clear attempt to game Wikipedia policies and guidelines. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per
WP:SKCRIT#6, since the article in question is currently linked to on the Main Page (see Template:In the news), the procedure for AfD is to wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating the article here. Mz7 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Catalan Republic (2017)

Catalan Republic (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

A "Catalan Republic" does not exist. It's a fantasy by some fanatics. It is not recognized. It has no support beyond the fanatics. It doesn't control any territory. It has no administration. It has nothing. It's like a garage band or some performance art. Snowball delete. noclador (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It doesn't matter if it exists; it matters if it has media coverage, which it does. Thus, it should be kept. Plus, it mentions how it is a unilaterally declared state, so I don't see any problem. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 01:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Clearly notable, whatever its ultimate fate. PatGallacher (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename Independence has been declared by the local government, which has autonomous power, following a (albeit repressed) referendum. This and the huge amount of press coverage and statements of numerous governments it has received makes this notable enough. There are articles of unrecognised nations (with no de facto and/or de jure control) on Wiki with far lesser press coverage and "notability" than this, yet are firm keepers. The name on the other hand I question. Catalan Republic is a historical term. Is there a any evidence this is what the provisional government is calling itself? How do we even know if it is or shall be a republic? Catalan State or simply Catalonia (self-declared state) would be better names. UaMaol (talk) 01:52, 29 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball: Duke vs. South Carolina

2017 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball: Duke vs. South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A
π, ν) 01:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This was an upset, but nothing over and above what we see most years. I think there is minimal historical significance for the game and it didn’t get coverage over and above any other tournament loss by a traditional power program Rikster2 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual games are inherently not notable per
WP:AFC. Gasp!—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the strange rationale given for deprod is not about whether it is notable, but because it is accepted through AFC. Also clear
WP:MILL at round 32! Ammarpad (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Upsets happen in the NCAA Tournament. Few such upsets rise to the level of getting their own article.
Lepricavark (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. We cover teams, tournaments, seasons, and even teams by seasons. Games and individuals plays, unless exceptionally notable (e.g. The Catch (American football)) - no.Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 2 November 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Weinstein

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

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

He just doesn't meet
PROD}} previously removed — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

His only notable contribution seems to be the equivalence of some economic theories with guage theories in physics. His non-standard theories seem to have no significant support or opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete his theories have not generated enough coverage to show notability for them. Nothing else comes close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to explain THIS? Carrite (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nineteen references that demonstrate notability.Racklever (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the references support facts about him, but those facts do not necessarily indicate notability. In other words, not a reason to keep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I recall his "Geometric Unity" making a fairly big splash in the pop-science media at the time (2013), mostly on account of all the scientists saying how unprofessional the whole affair was. (Some sample reactions collected here: [35].) And after that splash, it sank without a trace. So, while one might plausibly argue that he is notable for his notoriety, I am sympathetic to the argument that that incident was
talk) 16:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I don't think one can make case here for notability on
WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep under
WP:GNG. The chap is Managing Director, of Thiel Capital, the investment firm of Peter Theil! He is quite a prolific writer of think pieces, with three essays at Big Think, one of the contributors to the Edge's yearly survey question.[36] Was recently subject of a Vox interview.[37]. Here is another interview by on a week show by Tim Ferriss.[38] --Salix alba (talk): 20:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Nsk92, plenty of evidence that this individual is sufficiently notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think when The Guardian runs a headline like THIS, the question of whether the subject fulfills GNG is pretty much resolved. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep He may or may not meet
WP:ACADEMIC but he meets the GNG, and the encyclopedia is better with this biography as a result. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: As as a reader, a user of Wikipedia as a resource, I found the presence of this article useful. I came across Eric Weinstein speaking on a podcast to topics largely outside of his professional/academic fields and found it valuable to be able to look him up on en:Wikipedia and learn of other aspects of his life and accomplishments. Hence, I support keeping the Eric Weinstein article because for me (and by extension potentially for other readers as well) in practice it provides encyclopedic value. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG.
Lepricavark (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw (although, with two delete comments, I really can't). It would be nice if some of the material indicating notability would make it to the article, per requests over a year old. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_October_29&oldid=1142617540"~~~~

[1] "Apple's AirPower tech wirelessly charges multiple devices at once".

[2] John Gruber (October 28, 2017). "Daring Fireball: Jason Snell Reviews the iPhone 8: The Inessential iPhone". Daring Fireball. Retrieved October 29, 2017.

[1]