Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 1

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.

Roger Lagassé

Roger Lagassé (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)

Unelected, fringe political candidate.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has made a few unsuccessful attempts, but has never been an elected candidate. Seems to have tried his hand at a few thing, but nothing singularly notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While we used to have a consensus that running for the leadership of a political party was a notability claim in and of itself, that was deprecated several years ago — now, a leadership candidate is notable only if they either win the leadership or have some other independent claim of notability besides that, such as preexisting notability for other endeavours and/or concurrent notability as an MP or MLA. Nothing here, however, constitutes a notability claim that would have gotten him an article for any reason other than the leadership race itself — and he's not the subject of enough of the sources to claim that he passes
  primary sources or pieces of his own writing, which are not notability-supporting sources either — there's only one citation here that genuinely demonstrates Lagassé as the subject of reliable source coverage in his own right, and that's just not enough. There really just isn't anything here that's compelling grounds for him to have a standalone article separately from having his name mentioned in the other articles where it's relevant to mention. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - the article needs significant pruning but the subject has received significant third party coverage in the past and thus passes
  WP:GNG. Nixon Now (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If not keep, then merge with

New Democratic Party leadership election, 1989 so that people reading about the leadership election can find out something about the candidates rather than just their names. Nixon Now (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Significant third party coverage about him where and in what notable context? The sourcing here consists of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"B.C. teacher bids to lead NDP," Toronto Star, 10 April 1989, A9; "Teacher enters NDP race," Toronto Star, 1 August 1989, C6; Thomas Walkem, "NDP leadership candidates practice art of the ordinary," Toronto Star, 15 October 1989, A22. An article in which the topic is the subject himself is not a mere "namecheck". Nixon Now (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are covering him in a context that counts as an "inherent" notability claim — coverage generated in the context of the leadership race itself just makes him a

WP:GNG pass just because "some media coverage exists", it would take far more than just three citations to get him there. And he's not the primary subject of "NDP leadership candidates practice art of the ordinary", either — that one's about all of the candidates, not him as a topic of special interest separately from everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia isn't paper. People reading about old leadership elections may indeed be curious about who the candidates actually were and there's no reason not to provide that information. Nixon Now (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, there is a reason not to provide that information: the need for a person to pass a subject-specific notability standard, on the strength of enough

WP:BLP1E, before a Wikipedia article becomes appropriate. The idea that we need to keep an article about everybody who ever ran for the leadership of a political party at all, even if they lost and have no other notability claim at all besides running and losing, is not new ground that Wikipedia hasn't considered and debated before. It's been taken into account, and consensus decided that it just makes them a BLP1E who doesn't qualify for an article if there's no other notability claim outside of that context itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you please provide a source for this consensus in Wikipedia's policy pages? Nixon Now (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." A quick search of the Globe and Mail archives yields:

• York, G. (1989, Dec 01). Mixup symbolic of B.C. teacher's modest campaign. The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/docview/1237201335?accountid=14369
• Teacher enters NDP race. (1989, Aug 01). The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.torontopubliclibrary.ca/docview/1237184690?accountid=14369

You are insisting that coverage must also be independent of the election in which the candidate ran, but WP:NPOL doesn't say that. Nixon Now (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in any election would always get an automatic "GNG exempts them from having to pass NPOL" if the existence of a handful of campaign-related coverage itself were all it took to pass GNG. There are only three ways to make a candidate for office notable: (1) they win the election and thereby become the holder of the office they were running for, (2) they have some other valid and properly sourced claim of notability besides the candidacy itself, or (3) they received so much more coverage than everybody else in the same boat could also show that they can credibly claim to be a special case. Simply being able to show that a few pieces of campaign-specific coverage exists is not enough in and of itself, because if that were all it took then there would never be any non-notable candidates in any elections at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL doesn't say that. Nixon Now (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia notability standards are written in general terms, not expanded into epic novels that preemptively address every possible question of interpretation in advance. It's not enough to read the letter of any inclusion guideline and say that it's been passed — you also need to be familiar with the established AFD consensus about how the guidelines are interpreted in cases of debate about them. And my summary was correct about how NPOL is interpreted here in cases of dispute — because every candidate in any election always gets enough coverage to claim that even though they fail NPOL they still pass GNG anyway, NPOL would be inherently disembowelled if campaign-related coverage itself were all it took to get a candidate over GNG in lieu of NPOL. So yes, a candidate for office does need to win, have preexisting notability for other reasons or show a credible reason why their candidacy is somehow a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy — the fact that those conditions haven't been explicitly stated in NPOL does not make them not true, because passing a notability standard is not just a matter of being able to claim that a person technically meets the letter of the law. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, if its a matter of discretion. Then let's let discretion fall on the side of inclusion. Nixon Now (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NPOL and GNG the coverage of his (failed) bids are not sufficient to prove notability as per #3 of NPOL. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2018 (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. Merge would have been a good idea, except for the target not existing :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Oil Norge

Enterprise Oil Norge (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

• Delete - totally agree with Eddie, because I searched on Google and no notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirbanzo Thanks. Perhaps you meant hits, not 'Ghits'? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ghits" is slang here on Wikipedia for Google search results. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only on Wikipedia.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh... Live and learn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with parent company Norske Shell. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above, not notable, merge with Norske Shell. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Norske Shell does not have an article. Geschichte (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2018 (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) 00:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Venhuizen

Tony Venhuizen (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)

Minor political figure. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(there's a halo...) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(there's a halo...) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Imma lova not a fighter. Could you catch me those dead links for me brotha? Also you gon' prod Dusty Johnson yet? Koncurrentkat (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Neither GNG nor NPOL is met.
  π, ν) 03:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• South Dakota Board of Regents member or regent appointed by the Governor Mike Rounds, see predecessor Harvey C. Jewett IV (same or similar credentials)
• Chief of staff to Governor Dennis Daugaard, see predecessor chief of staff Dusty Johnson (same or similar credentials)
• Campaign manager of
  South Dakota gubernatorial election, 2014

For kicks,

• Truman scholar
• He's also the son-in-law to the Gov..c'mon

Koncurrentkat (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Send it. Koncurrentkat (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG, V, and NPOL. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Several of these are roles that could get him an article if he could be shown as the subject of enough
  primary source list of university scholarship recipients. Notability for Wikipedia purposes is not a question of what an article says, but of how well it does or doesn't reference what it says. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Cotton Bowl Classic

2018 Cotton Bowl Classic (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)

Unreferenced and way

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep what's the point of deleting it? It's going to happen and it's less than a year away.
  Lepricavark (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:TOOSOON for this. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I respectfully submit that deleting the article now is pointless as the game is less than a year away.

Lepricavark (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• keep typically we retain articles about the upcoming events for major bowl games such as this. There is plenty of information about the game even before we know the teams. There is even a website for the event. Should be a clear pass of
  WP:GNG even for a future event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - this is a notable event that has been going on for 80 years. This year it will be hosting the semi-finals for the College Football Playoff. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I think the nominator is right as an article requires secondary sources in order not to violate
  WP:TOOSOON, and the article is currently completely unreferenced: I quickly tried to reference it but had difficulty, as there were lots of ticket sites in the first few pages of a search. I want to vote delete as a result but I feel as if I'd be overly pedantic if I did so. SportingFlyer talk 02:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Speedy keep, a source has been found and we all know this event will either take place, or be notable for not taking place. SportingFlyer talk 06:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources: 2018 Cotton Bowl Classic" on Google returns 16 results, and "2018 Cotton Bowl" returns 2,390, but mostly from this past year's event. News results return 1 and 4, respectively. Clearly no evidence of notability yet in secondary, reliable sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep No rationale for deletion has been presented--MARY018 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Strike CU confirmed sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MARY018: Can you elaborate? There is a completely valid deletion rationale. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced is a valid argument but becomes no longer relevant once a source is added, which I just did. If it was one of the hundreds of bowl games I can understand waiting for sources, but this is for the Playoffs so I can understand the early focus. A redirect to College Football Playoffs, or Cotton Bowl Classic, would of been a better alternative than requesting deletion. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all above, and historical precedents like this one. Deletion is pointless in cases like this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable Event Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is a notable event that will certainly occur, and even if it does not, it will be notable for not happening. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:37, 8 March 2018 (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, as unanimous, including withdrawal by nominator. (non-admin closure) Doncram (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parachinar Airport

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

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

Subject is a small, defunct airport of dubious note. Proposing deletion as the subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why do you say the airport is defunct and dubious? Pakistan Airlines once flew STOL aircraft from there [2] and other airlines appear to be considering it for future service (trivial reference) [3], and a plane got torched by militants there in 2010 [4]. There was also a light plane crash there in 2010. [5] It's also in the proper databases for verifiability reasons [6] [7] [8]. There are also a couple secondary sources linked in the article itself, and a trivial reference to its expansion in English-language press. I think it's definitely something that can be developed, especially since not all sources may be in English. SportingFlyer talk 02:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SportingFlyer. It does appear to have been a verified functioning official airport, with commercial service and IATA code to boot. --Oakshade (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even smaller airstrips that are defunct are typically notable (this might be covered by GEOsomething - similar to an abandoned village). In this case it is actually functioning and sourcing is available.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above.  samee  ^talk 15:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn in light of sources which have been located. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2018 (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 Closing duplicate nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordica destinations (2nd nomination) for the actual AfD discussion. (non-admin closure) -- intgr [talk] 22:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nordica destinations

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 is supported by only a single primary

Note: The original discussion page was incorrectly formatted; I've fixed up the template and will relist it. I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (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. Noting that the author does not dispute the deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intugame

Dear Justlettersandnumbers, this page is not valid anymore, so I was also about to request for its deletion. Thus I will not dispute its removal.Justtryanother (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intugame (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)

• Undisclosed paid editing in violation of our
  Terms of Use. The editor claims here to have created the logo "As a part of my job as Marketing Manager of Intugame". Evaluation of the notability or otherwise of the company will probably require fluency in Bulgarian. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: the article seems to be a duplicate of QuarkVR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I've now nominated QuarkVR for deletion for the same reasons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be paid editing, and WP:COI violation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to
  alternative to deletion. --Izno (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as it was probably created in violation of
  WP:NCORP. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete this diff [9] points to a G7 CSD as the creator is the only major contributor. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2018 (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. Noting that we do not typically merge unsourced content into another article given that content is required to be verifiable. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in the Comoros

Hinduism in the Comoros (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - unsourced unnotable and some ludicrous claims made. Amisom (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeMerge into Religion_in_the_Comoros - not enough here to substantiate its own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nothing to merge unless at least one of the claims can be substantiated. Also, there's nothing currently on the religion page on Hinduism so a redirect wouldn't make sense. Do you have any sources on Hinduism in Comoros? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if someone wants to write a proper article. The Hindu population is very small, I can find sentences like: "The government continues to significantly respect religious freedom, especially for the several hundred non-Sunni residents including Shia Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and Protestants." But noting in the way of SIGCOV comes up in quick searches. So while the article may well be correct that some Hindus arrived as migrants, presumably in the French colonial period, and although it would be in line with our many Hinduism in..., it seem wiser to delete, unless or until someone comes by willing and able to source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professor (stock character)

Professor (stock character) (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)

Simply being a professor is not a stock character type like mad scientist or absent-minded professor, it is a fictional job. Therefore this article is unnecessary and List of fictional professors already fills that purpose. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. "Professor" is far too general to be a stock character. Search for professor stock character gives results for absent-minded professor stock character, separate concept which has its own article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, the only encyclopedic content is already on
  π, ν) 03:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I think if there were some references here discussing the concept as notable, then it would save the article, as clearly there is a sort of semi-generic professor character ins shows. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. The article's only content as it stands is a duplicate. Acebulf (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 'Professor' is not a 'stock character' as such. DaveApter (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete far too general and not notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:28, 8 March 2018 (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.

GameZone

GameZone (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)

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

By chance I heard this website shut down last month but didn't see any gaming website cover its closure. Even then I didn't see any independent coverage of the site itself. The article itself comes off as promoting the site and nothing else. GamerPro64 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage in RS. Site and social media seems to have shut down/become inactive a couple weeks ago, yet I cannot find mention of this in any news sources. Article in its current state also does not contain any RS indicating notability, possibly because no such sources existed at the time of creation either. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and Hrodvarsson. -- ferret (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article is backlinked by 2,237 articles in mainspace. Any plans to clean up the red links? -- GreenC 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Most likely references. Twinkle can remove the red links, though I'm sure a bot could do so also trivially. --Izno (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Does appear to be notable. Loads of reliable sources will refer to its reviews/news/interviews/previews as if they are trustworthy (but those are just fleeting mentions). Some examples of articles that refer to it are: --Coin945 (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GameZone Online is to build and host ecommerce stores for the games industry"
  • "GameZone+Online"&source=bl&ots=EgZbIs_09K&sig=JtYHXtK0-n86bUKeSLUA3raJs9A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjajdm7hs3ZAhWGFJQKHZIxBxA4ChDoAQg6MAU#v=onepage&q=%22GameZone%20Online%22&f=false "A magazine with reliable, unbiased information about PC and video games. "2
  • "GameZone's Morris told me in an email this morning. "I think in the future, in an effort to be more transparent with gamers and our audience, I will ask how the quote will be used and where it will be placed.""
  • "However, the campaign is obviously targeting garners, being placed in such sites as PCZone, Gameplay and Gamezone." (implying that the site is considered a reliable source of information for gamers).
  • The Cincinnati Post review of the site: "Here's another good site with the full load - hints, cheats and reviews, too. I really like the setup on this..."
• See also A wikipedia analysis of whether Gamezone is a reliable source (it passed)--Coin945 (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that a reliable source also be a notable topic. --Masem (t) 01:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. See Hardcore Gaming 101 and Gematsu. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Science hero

Science hero (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)

Seems to simply be a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the generic nature of the term makes it hard to confirm sources don't exist, but the way the article's written defines it as a specific class of characters from a singular work. I can't see this meeting GNG. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced and too generic. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2018 (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.

Dark Lady (character)

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

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

There is no evidence that this is a legitimate stock character, and most of the article is about the Shakespeare character (which already has its own article at Dark Lady (Shakespeare)). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The stereotype appears in many other works besides Shakespeare. For example, here's another source and yet more. Andrew D. (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently there is a tragic mulatto article for that character archetype. Making this article still superflous._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mulatto is just one sort of dark lady. The substantial nature of that article, as well as the Shakespeare case, further demonstrates that we need this page as a
      broad concept article to disambiguate all the various examples and sub-types. As another example of these, see this paper about the dark ladies of Edgar Allan Poe – women who are doomed, dying or dead. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

@

WP:OR to connect one author's "Dark Lady" character (in this case, Leslie Fiedler's or Edgar Allan Poe's) with another's (Shakespeare's) without a source that explicitly makes the comparison. Their having the same "name" is not enough. If you want to completely throw out everything in the article and rewrite it to compare Poe's various Dark Ladies to each other, using the Narendra source, that would be fine, but you could do that with the page being deleted as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No, juuxtaposition of content under the same heading is not OR; it's our normal way of editing. The guideline

WP:BROAD tells us that bringing such material together is best practise. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh dear... please tell me you are joking...?

WP:SYNTH is quite explicit that drawing original comparisons between literary "characters" based on their being discussed in sources using the same words (but without the sources directly comparing them) is disallowed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As Hijiri said, mashing all literary mentions of a "Dark Lady" would violate

WP:SYNTH. If a particular author's use of a Dark Lady character is notable, then it should have its own article, not a broad concept article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The
  Dark Lord (fiction) and Dark Lady are regular components of fiction. Ample references to prove that. Dream Focus 11:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I added in a reference a song by Cher about a dark lady, called Dark Lady. Sifting through various results in Google news, I see them refer to Hela from Marvel's Thor series as a dark lady. [10] Dream Focus 18:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Use of "lady" as a noun-adjunct (they actually refer to her as a "dark lady villain") is clearly unrelated. She is a villain who is both dark and a lady. Please be more careful with sourcing, and stop !voting down AFDs based solely on principle while trying to find "sources" that might seem to support your principle if other editors don't actually click on them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, the way the fictional works in question use "lady", it is obviously the female equivalent of "gentleman", not the female equivalent of "lord"; I've been an on-and-off fantasy junkie for most of my life (I'm 29 now; my first time playing a Dungeons & Dragons-based video game was when I was 11) and have rarely encountered "Dark Ladies" -- if they exist at all, they are surely a deliberate and obvious inversion of the Dark Lord trope. Even the Korean film review linked does not refer to Hela as a "Dark Lady" but as a villain who is both dark and a lady (in the sense of simply being female -- it's not very PC, but a close read shows a bunch of English errors, and the writer's other articles are not much better). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dark Lady (Shakespeare) already exists, and everything else in the article except for a single line about Latinas is unsourced (and for some reason the GBooks link there is returning an error, although I suspect, given that no page number is given, that it doesn't actually talk about a literary archetype called a "Dark Lady" and just says "shadowy woman" or something like that). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems to be an article synthesized from a combination of uses of terms that would actually be fit under the Shakespeare term, the Tragic mulatto article, or simply characters with that name, rather than coverage of the actual independent topic as a notable stock character concept.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is easy to find coverage of the matter as a general concept rather than as a specific example. For example, here's yet another source: The Dark Lady. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: If you want to rewrite the article to be about something completely different (in this latest case, the dilithic "Dark Lady" motif from Italian baroque poetry), fire ahead. It doesn't change the fact that your source is not about a "character" and that the article as is is nothing but SYNTH that has nothing to do with any of the sources you and DF have located. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there doesn't seem to be enough sources to prove that this is a notable character in the same way as the Dark Lord is. The term Lady in the examples given is not used in the same way as Lord but rather as an analogy for woman. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2018 (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.

Adenike Fajemirokun

Adenike Fajemirokun (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-executive director of a company. Questionable notability. Travelbird (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Notable enough to have her own profile on Bloomberg. Her speeches have been noted in businesstodayng.com and guardian.ng over the course of years. The Sun News did a profile of her and noted her as a "rising star." The Daily Trust did a profile of her when she was promoted to director at AIICO Pension Managers Limited. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A female cooperate professional on the board of many leading companies seem like a big deal. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Dan arndt (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, appears to fail
  WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE] SportingFlyer (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete: I'm not seeing compelling
  WP:SIGCOV to warrant keeping this. Marquardtika (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment This article doesn't need to pass
  WP:GNG. The topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: Meets GNG. Business people is close, but add the significant coverage, we get to adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the items which are being claimed towards making her notable are just routine aspects of someone's career. I mention this as the sourcing for the article all points back to these routine items. For example the lede tells us that "Head of Operational Risk of First Bank of Nigeria and joined the Dangote Group in 2014 and serves as the Group Chief Risk Officer." Ok, she had some higher positions in a company. So? Being on a board, as mentioned in the lede, is not notable. It's true that an article can contain non-notable items. However this one tried to make a case for notability by using sources that comment on entirely routine, non-notable job. activities. Any notability that exists here is extremely minor.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG the sources are not strong enough. Most are either quotes, associated, routine coverage or puff pieces, or not very reliable, one even refers to her as him where they seem just to be repeating things said in the 1st person by the subject. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2018 (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.

Selco Builders Warehouse

Selco Builders Warehouse (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 subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a UK building trade outlet with 200 or so outlets, so a big national chain. The refs in the article are crap so I know why it is here and if it gets deleted well they don't care so I don't. Szzuk (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we still require

WP:NCORP, the size should only be a factor to the extent it has been reported by independent sources. Rentier (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Call it a weak keep. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lots of coverage such as Builders merchant has 50 posts to fill in Leicester - and here's how you can apply and pieces in trade press, but no in-depth coverage in RS. Fails GNG and NCORP. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotionalism-only article for a nn business. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2018 (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) 00:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aniruddha Bhattacharya

Aniruddha Bhattacharya (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 credible indication of notability, largely promotional with no independent references. I could not find any suitable references from a brief search Beevil (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete autobiographical article (if one believes the user page of the article creator) that fails NMUSIC and GNG nothing found of interest in a search, CSD declined by a sockpuppet otherwise probably would have been deleted already. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - google news provides some name checks, but no significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qtum

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

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

Notability was not established. The article is based on primary and self-published sources only. Retimuko (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1. per nom, the sources I checked were primary and
  WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 22:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment on the rash of cryptocurrencies I also have concerns about the usual cryptocurrency article enthusiasm / promotion yadder yadder, as we seem to be playing whack-a-mole with these non-notable or borderline N articles which are created with enthusiasm / promotion. May I suggest that as all these ICOs have been compared to startup IPOs, bringing with them the same kind of necessary
  WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 22:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ufo Mustonen

Ufo Mustonen (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 real indication of notability, and Google produces nothing but YouTube videos. Only cite returns error and all it purports to say is that he played somewhere once. Finnish Wikipedia exists but is mainly discography with one cite to a random blog. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk • mail) 00:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, not notable - no RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - miles away from meeting any of our notability standards, no
  reliable sources. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:33, 8 March 2018 (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.

WWF Mayhem in Manchester

WWF Mayhem in Manchester (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)

Has been a redirect for many years, which occasionally gets reconstituted back into an article. Current sourcing is poor (to be charitable). Couple of brief blurbs, couple of database listings. The best in terms of content is a blog, unfortunately. Searches turned up very little in terms of any coverage, let alone substantive in-depth coverage. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The previous article which was a redirected is completely different than the article in its current form. The event meets
  WP:GNG. - Galatz^Talk 18:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep clearly a notable event. I find it hard to believe there are no paper sources or newspaper articles in tabloids for the event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete - None of the sources currently in the article are proven reliable sources. According to
  WP:LASTING argument either (at least not yet). According to WP:LASTING, "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable" and "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else". What permanent effect did this have? What is the reliable source that proves this event was the direct cause of said result? Nikki♥311 23:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Edit: I've finally had a chance to more thoroughly research this topic, and I've decided on delete. This topic does not meet

WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 01:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per
  WP:EVENT. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - What part of
  WP:EVENT? It's had no lasting effect (as pointed out by Nikki311 above), the depth of coverage by reliable sources is non-existent, it has very limited scope. Not sure how it meets EVENT. Simply saying meets a standard is not the same as showing how it meets that standard. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My gut feeling looking at this says keep, but it in fact, it doesn't meet any of the criteria to keep under
  WP:EVENT. None of the sources are particularly notable, independant of the subject, or qualify as RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Sourcing is bad and doesn't have coverage in reliable, independent sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don Wyrtzen

Don Wyrtzen (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)

Unsourced and not seeing any notably. Also a copyright violation https://www.halleonard.com/biographyDisplay.do?id=141&subsiteid=1

Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)===Don Wyrtzen===[reply]

Don Wyrtzen (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)

Unsourced and not seeing any notably. Also a copyright violation https://www.halleonard.com/biographyDisplay.do?id=141&subsiteid=1

Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2018 (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.

Ian Graham (snooker player)

Ian Graham (snooker player) (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)

Snooker player - Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? The article says he played in the 1991 World Championship, I checked and he did, what more do you want? Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:: Comment - @

He played at the World Championship - the premier professional snooker competition in the world, he doesn't need references because it is a matter of public record, he passes notability cue sports by a mile. Szzuk (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think @
  WP:CUENOT. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. I've added another citation (which, unlike CueTracker, isn't blacklisted). It shows that not only did he play at The Crucible, but that he twice got to the quarter-finals of ranking events. Narky Blert (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2018 (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) 00:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne de Beistegui

Daphne de Beistegui (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)

Has only one role in film and a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one minor role in one film is not at all close to making one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, not notable actor. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2018 (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. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William F.X. Maughan

William F.X. Maughan (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicans-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, and
  G4. AaronWikia (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]